Mehmood Faisal v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 1135/2021 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 8 April 2026.
1. By a Form 86 filed on 12 August 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review against a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office ( “the Board” ) dated 3 August 2021 ( “the Board’s Decision” ), which was made upon the hearing of a petition/appeal from the Director of Immigration ( “DI” )’s decision dated 21 November 2018. A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink [1] .
|
HCAL 1135/2021 [2026] HKCFI 1923 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1135 of 2021
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3) Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:
Observations for the Applicant: 1.By a Form 86 filed on 12 August 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review against a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 3 August 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), which was made upon the hearing of a petition/appeal from the Director of Immigration (“DI”)’s decision dated 21 November 2018. A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1]. 2.According to the Board’s Decision, the non-refoulement claim of the Applicant, a Pakistani, was based on a dispute between him and his girlfriend’s family members opposing to their relationship. The Board accepted the basic facts of the Applicant’s claim, but found no reliable evidence to show that the girlfriend’s family would harm/kill the Applicant if he were to return to Pakistan, he faced risk throughout Pakistan or that he suffered injuries up to the requisite severity. Moreover, based on country information, the Board assessed that the Applicant could have access to protection by the State. By these reasons, the petition/appeal was dismissed on all applicable grounds. 3.The Applicant has not set out any ground of judicial review. I have considered the Board’s Decision vigorously, but am unable to detect any reasonable argument that the decision was tainted by any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. In my view, the Board has conducted an anxious scrutiny of the facts of the case and assessed intensely its factual issues. 4.This application for leave to apply for judicial review is accordingly dismissed.
Dated the 8th day of April 2026
Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence
Form CALL-1 [1] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL001135_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||