Aslam Waqar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1177/2025

[2026] HKCFI 2188

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1177 of 2025

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

	consideration of documents only;          or
	consideration of documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

1.  The extension of time for the application for Judicial Review be refused; and

2.  The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 8 November 2024 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”). His application is late. His application shall not be later than 3 months from the date of the Board’s Decision[1], which expired on 8 February 2025. His application was filed on 21 May 2025, which is late for more than 3 months. This issue will be dealt with below.

2.The applicant appeared before the Court on 22 December 2025 and on 1 April 2026.

The applicant

3.The applicant is a national of Pakistan. He is an illegal immigrant as he entered Hong Kong illegally on 25 October 2023. He was arrested. He lodged a non‑refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by people of the Pakistan Muslim League (“PML(N)”) because he belonged to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (“PTI”). In the demonstration on 9 May 2023, he was shot and attacked by wooden sticks by the PML(N) people. He had suffered injuries. They had also threatened to kill him if he did not leave PTI.

4.Details of the applicant’s story can be found in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001177_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

The Director’s Decision

5.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.  risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b.  risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);

c.  risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

d.  risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

6.The Director, by Notice of Decision dated 18 June 2024, (“the Director’s Decision”), refused the applicant’s claim because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

7.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 19 September 2024, the Board conducted an oral hearing. The applicant had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

8.Having considered the evidence and materials, the Board made the findings below.

(1)  The applicant made bare assertions and provided no objective proof at all. [12]

(2)  The Board did not accept he was a member and a supporter of the PTI since 2018. [55]

(3)  Even if it accepted he was a member and a supporter to the PTI, it would be disproportionate, implausible and illogical for the PMLN members to persecute him simply because he had taken part in PTI activities as a member and a supporter. [58]

(4)  There was no evidence that those attacked him in the demonstration had any connection with or was instigated by PMLN. [60]

(5)  The alleged risk was localized and never extended beyond his home area. [76]

(6)  There was no evidence that the applicant would face foreseeable risk from the PMLN people if he returns to Pakistan. [78]-[79]

(7)  State protection would be available to him if he returns to Pakistan and there was no evidence that the state had acquiesced in the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant. [82]-[83]

(8)  There was no evidence that he was tortured, ill-treated or persecuted. [85]-[87]

(9)  Internal relocation will be viable if he returns to Pakistan. [130]

9.For the reasons above, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

10.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 21 May 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

11.In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant has raised the grounds below against the Board’s Decision.

(1)  The Board had failed to make sufficient enquiry. The Board also did not appreciate that the applicant only has limited resources to obtain evidence in support his claim as he is only a refugee from his country. The Board did not give sufficient chance to him to arrange relevant evidence.

(2)  BOR 3 right is absolute right. As a person in Hong Kong, he should enjoy this right and other applicable rights.

DISCUSSION

12.As mentioned in paragraph 1, this application is late. In AW v Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015, §27 the Court of Appeal held that for extension of time for making the application for leave to apply for judicial review, the Court has to consider (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted. I shall consider the merits of the applicant’s case.

13.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, the applicant said the Board is not wrong.

14.In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:

“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director). The court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.”

15.The reasons under paragraph 11 are general assertions or the applicant’s bare assertions without any evidence in support. As seen from the Board’s Decision, summarized in paragraph 8, it is apparent that the Board had considered the facts of his case comprehensively, bearing in mind the legal principles for the assessment and giving reasons for its findings, which have already covered the applicant’s complaints. As the applicant agreed that the Board is not wrong, those grounds become insignificant.

16.In the circumstances, the applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

17.I refuse to extend time for the applicant to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

Dated the 29^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