Rasheed Shahid v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

HCAL 827/2021

[2026] HKCFI 3616

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 827 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 Bruno Chan:

Leave to apply for judicial review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.The Applicant is a 44-year-old national of Pakistan who entered Hong Kong on 6 July 2009 and was arrested by police on the following day on 7 July 2009.  After he was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, he raised a torture claim on the basis that if he returned to Pakistan he would be harmed or killed by his paternal uncle over a land dispute between his father and his uncle in his home village. He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2.The Applicant was born and raised in Village Kot Khizri, Tehsil Wazirabad, District Gujranwala, Punjab, Pakistan where his father and his 2 uncles had inherited their share of the farmlands in his grandfather’s estate years ago even before the Applicant was born, but as one of his uncles namely Akram was not happy with his given share and had frequently demanded for more land from the Applicant’s father that had led to a long history of conflicts between them within their family.

3.After leaving school the Applicant ran his own business selling electronics in his home village, but had on occasions intervened in the quarrels between his father and Akram that had angered the latter who accused the Applicant of being rude to him.

4.One day in 2008 when the Applicant ran into Akram and his son in the street, Akram again accused him of being rule and together with his son proceeded to beat the Applicant with wooden sticks causing injuries to his head and right collar bone, and before they left Akram threatened that if his father continued to refuse to yield to his demand over their land dispute that he would kill the Applicant.

5.After the assault the Applicant made a report to the local police who then arrested Akram and his son, but later released them without charge after Akram had paid a bribe to them, whereupon Akram then made a false charge against the Applicant, and as a result the Applicant was arrested by the police for interrogation, and was later released after his father had also paid a bribe to the police.  

6.Shortly thereafter his father heard that Akram had planned to kill the Applicant, and so on his father’s advice the Applicant fled from his home village to hide in a friend’s place in Qudratabad, and on 29 June 2009 he departed Pakistan for China, and from there he later sneaked into Hong Kong, and upon his arrest by the police he raised his torture claim, and after it was rejected he then sought non-refoulement protection on the same basis, for which he completed a Supplementary Claim Form (“SCF”) on 20 June 2018 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).             

7.By a Notice of Decision dated 16 July 2018 the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the remaining applicable grounds other than torture risk including risk of his absolute or non-derogable rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 (“HKBOR”) being violated including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 Risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of HKBOR (“BOR 3 Risk”), and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (“Persecution Risk”).

8.In his decision the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and found no substantial grounds for believing that there will be any real risk of him being harmed or killed by his paternal uncle upon his return to Pakistan due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from them, that there is no evidence of any real intention of his uncle to seriously harm or kill him other than angry words and empty threats, that in any event it was a private land dispute between his father and his uncle within their family only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant if resorted to, and that reliable and objective Country of Origin Information (“COI”) show that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in Pakistan with a large population of 204 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 796,000 square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from his home district in large cities such as Lahore or Karachi where it would be difficult if not impossible for his uncle to locate him.

9.On 27 July 2018 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which he attended an oral hearing on 9 April 2021 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions raised of his claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 13 May 2021 his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

10.In its decision[1] the Board found material inconsistencies and discrepancies in the Applicant’s evidence that it doubted the credibility of his claim of fear of harm from his paternal uncle Akram over any land dispute between their 2 families that caused him to leave his country to come to Hong Kong to seek protection, that even if his account of events prior to his departure of Pakistan were true that there was no reliable evidence of any real intention of his uncle to seriously harm or kill him other than to put pressure on his father to yield to his demand, and that in any event it was a private land dispute between his father and his uncle only and within the family without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon his return to Pakistan as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for him to move safely to other parts of the country away from his home district without any risk of being located by his uncle that his claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.    

11.On 4 June 2021 the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in his Form or his supporting affirmation of the same date in which he just stated that he rejects the decision but without putting forth any proper ground for his intended challenge, nor was he able to do so at the hearing of his application.  As such, and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in his process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis for his intended challenge of the Board’s decision.

12.As has been repeatedly emphasized by the Court of Appeal, judicial review does not operate as a rehearing of a non-refoulement claim when the proper occasion for the Applicant to present and articulate his claim is in the screening process and interview before the Immigration Department and in the process before the Board where the evaluation of the risk of harm is primarily a matter for the Director and the Board as they are entitled to make such evaluation based on the evidence available to them that the court will not usurp their role as primary decision makers in the absence of any legal error or procedural unfairness or irrationality in their decisions being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, as judicial review is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by them in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh: Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.

13.In the Applicant’s case, the Board rejected his claim for the thorough and detailed analysis and reasoning set out in its decision with the benefit of hearing him in his oral evidence and his answers to questions raised of his claim, and in the absence of any error of law or procedural unfairness in his process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis to challenge the finding of the Board.

14.Furthermore, the fact is that it has also been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risk of harm in the Applicant’s claim even if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for him to relocate to other part of Pakistan, there is simply no justification to afford him with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.                

15.In the premises, and having considered the decisions of both the Director and the Board with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in either of them, nor any failure on their part to apply high standards of fairness in their consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s claim.

16.As I am for the given reasons not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, I therefore refuse to grant leave and accordingly dismiss his application.

Dated the 25^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