Case Document

100%

HCAL 1160/2021

[2026] HKCFI 2513

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1160 of 2021

BETWEEN
	Jamshaid Muhammad	Applicant
	and
	Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative
		Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested Party

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

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

Following;

consideration of the documents only; or

consideration of the documents and the Applicant’s submissions in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 17 August 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 9 August 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”). The Board’s Decision was made after an oral hearing on 3 June 2021 of the Applicant’s appeal/petition from the Director of Immigration (“DI”)’s first-tier decision dated 26 October 2018. A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1].

2.The Applicant is a Pakistani national. His claim for non-refoulment protection arose from a fatal traffic accident, in which he was the driver, and the threat from the deceased’s family. The Board considered the Applicant’s risk not falling within the meaning of torture (including its extended meaning by State acquiescence), that there was nothing to show a risk of violation of the rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, and that the claim did not fall within a Refugees Convention ground for persecution risk to become applicable. Reasonable internal relocation alternative was also found.

3.The Applicant has not set out any grounds of judicial review suggesting why the Board’s Decision was vitiated by public law error. During the oral hearing of this leave application, he did not add anything to the papers he filed in support of the application.

4.It is trite that judicial review is not a rehearing of the merits of a non-refoulement claim. In the absence of any valid argument that the Board had committed a legal error, been irrational in its reasoning or conducted its procedure unfairly, this Court has no basis to quash the Board’s Decision.

5.I have considered the Board’s Decision vigorously, but am unable to detect any reasonable argument that it should be quashed. This application for leave to apply for leave is therefore dismissed.

Dated the 8^th day of May 2026

(Wilinda YIU)
for Registrar, High Court

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

Notes for the Applicant: If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A); b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).		Sent to the Applicant on 8/5/2026 Jamshaid Muhammad Applicant’s ref. no.: Nil.		Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 8/5/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 14269/18/11/112/P2842 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 4037/18 (formerly RBCZ 10800/16) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

[1] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL001160_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

Related Cases

Ranked by citation overlap · cases that cite each other appear first

Jamshaid Muhammad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 507/2026 · Court of Appeal

30 Jul 2026

cites this

Cited by 1 case

Other judgments that cite this case

Jamshaid Muhammad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Court of Appeal

30 Jul 2026

Jamshaid Muhammad v. Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Jamshaid Muhammad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office