BabelCite

Zeeshan Mushtaq v. Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1337/2021[2026] HKCFI 2768
Court
High Court CFI
Date14 May 2026
Judge—
Case Document
100%

HCAL 1337/2021

[2026] HKCFI 2768

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1337 of 2021

BETWEEN
  Zeeshan Mushtaq 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 24 September 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 16 September 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”).  The Board’s Decision was made after an oral hearing on 23 July 2021 of the Applicant’s appeal/petition from the Director of Immigration (“DI”)’s first-tier decision dated 24 March 2021.  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 threats made against him by his uncles and cousins.  One of the uncles was said to be a member of Punjab Provincial Assembly belonging to the ruling party of the province (of abbreviation “PTI”). It was further claimed that this uncle could influence the Police to torture the Applicant and make false accusations against him.  After an intense questioning and inquiry into the facts of the case, the Board considered the Applicant’s account incredible.  He was found to have no real risk of harm from his uncles and cousins if he returns to Pakistan. 

3.The Applicant has purported to set out some grounds of judicial review in his supporting affirmation of this court application.  However, the purported grounds were just a repetition of the gist of his non-refoulement claim, but not any argument, or even suggestion, as to 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 14th 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 14/5/2026

Zeeshan Mushtaq

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 14/5/2026

Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 17823/21/4/26/P3439

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
Qa T/C 957/20 (Formerly RBCZ 10858/20)

Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)


Form CALL-1