Khan Mujahid Umar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1745/2021

[2026] HKCFI 1668

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 1745 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 Levy:  

1.   The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.

2.   The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed. 

Introduction

1.By a “Notice of application for leave to apply for judicial review” in the prescribed Form 86 filed on 23 December 2021, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”).  The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 25 November 2021 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 27 March 2018 (“Director’s Decision”) rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds[1] . The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlink: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL001745_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.In his Form 86, the applicant provided an office address as the interested party. As the Director should have been the proper interested party, the Form 86 shall be amended on the court’s own motion.

3.The basis of the applicant’s claim was that, if refouled to Pakistan, he would be harmed or killed by his creditor and his men due to an unpaid loan. The Board’s reasoning and findings were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision and it is not necessary for me to repeat them.  Unless otherwise specified, I shall also adopt the Board’s abbreviations and descriptions stated in the Board’s Decision.

4.At the applicant’s request for a hearing of the Leave Application, this court scheduled a hearing on 17 March 2026.  The applicant attended the hearing in person.  After having heard from him, this court informed him that the decision would be reserved, and be sent to his updated address.

Discussion

5.The leave application operates as a ‘filtering’ process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision.[2]  It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the Board’s Decision and the applicant’s materials adduced.

6.In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly[3], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit.  Apart from the written submissions exhibited to the supporting affirmation, the Form 86 and the supporting affirmation provided no grounds.  In the written submissions, the applicant averred that the Board’s Decision was unfair and prejudicial and had failed to apply a high standard of fairness.  It further averred that the Board had failed to make sufficient inquiry before reaching its decision; that it failed to give the applicant sufficient chance to obtain evidence; and further that the government was still corrupt and incompetent.

7.At the hearing, this court asked the applicant whether he had anything to say in support of the Leave Application.  The applicant said that he had nothing to say or to add to his written submissions.

8.As the Courts have repeatedly stated, a finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the Board, which a court in a judicial review will not interfere with unless such finding involved an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.[4]  In the present case, the Board rejected the applicant’s claims relating to the snooker club business and the Loan, which was the centerpiece of the applicant’s story. The Board therefore concluded that the applicant would not face any risk of harm if refouled. It further found that state protection and internal relocation were reasonably reasonable. These are findings of fact, which the court in a judicial review will not interfere with, subject to there being any public law errors.

9.Bearing in mind the enhanced standard that should be adopted in scrutinizing the Board’s Decision, this court is satisfied that the Board correctly applied the law relating to all the grounds and observed a high standard of fairness. The applicant’s written submissions were vague and lacked particulars.  The applicant has not shown any errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.  The applicant’s intended challenge to the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success such that would enable this court to grant leave[5].

Orders

10.The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.

11.The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Dated the 10^th 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