Zunair Tehseen Qamar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 8/2023

[2026] HKCFI 3214

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 8 of 2023

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 the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong:

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 filed on 4 January 2023 (the “Form”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision made by the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) on 14 December 2022 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the Leave Application. The hearing took place on 11 May 2026. Notice of Hearing was issued to the Applicant in advance at the address provided by the Applicant on the Form, which was also confirmed by the Immigration Department to be his latest address on record.    

3.Attempt was also made to contact and remind the Applicant of the hearing by phone at the number provided by the Applicant on the Administrative Form (which was also confirmed by the Immigration Department to be the Applicant’s latest phone number on record) on both 4 and 5 May 2026 but in vain.

4.The Applicant did not attend the hearing on 11 May 2026. As the Notice of Hearing was properly served at the address provided by the Applicant, I consider it appropriate to proceed with the Leave Application in the absence of the Applicant.

Background

5.The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the arguments he advanced had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and it is not necessary for me to repeat the same here. The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference.

Discussion

6.The applicable legal principles relating to application of this sort are well established. The role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. The primary decision makers are the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) and the Board. Though in non-refoulement cases, the Court will adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the Board due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, the Court should not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information (COI) materials, 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, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board. (See Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14)

7.On the Form or in the supporting Affirmation, the Applicant did not provide any grounds in support of the Leave Application. In the supporting Affirmation, the Applicant simply attached a copy of the Board’s Decision and stated that he did not agree with the decision.

8.I have considered the Board’s Decision in detail. I do not find any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality. Neither has the Applicant been able to demonstrate any of the same. There is nothing to indicate that the Board had failed to take into account any relevant matters. The Board’s Decision was comprehensive with adequate reasons provided. The Board was entitled to find the Applicant’s case to be vague and lacking in appropriate detail, specificity and context (and hence not credible or reliable) (§§122-146 of the Board’s Decision). The Board was entitled to reject the Applicant’s claims based on its evaluation of the evidence and the reasoning provided (§§161-180 of the Board’s Decision). I do not see any errors committed by the Board. The Board’s Decision satisfies the enhanced Wednesbury test and is not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational. I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success.

9.Leave application of this sort is meant to be a filtering process and I am not expected to give elaborated reasons for my decision (see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14, at §23). Suffice for me to state that in reaching the decision, I have considered all the relevant documents before me.  

Conclusion

10.In the premises, I make an order that the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 5^th day of June 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