BabelCite

Wajid Mohammed v. Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Read the full judgment text of HCAL 1701/2021 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 25 June 2026.

1. By a Form 86 filed on 15 December 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of an adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office ( “the Board” ) dated 19 October 2021 ( “the Board’s Decision” ), which was made after a hearing on 15 January 2021 of a petition against the first-tier decision of the Director of Immigration ( “DI” ) dated 26 May 2020.  A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink [1] . The Board assessed all applicabl

Case No.HCAL 1701/2021[2026] HKCFI 3521
Court
High Court CFI
Date25 Jun 2026
Judge—
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCAL 1701/2021

[2026] HKCFI 3521

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1701 of 2021

BETWEEN
  Wajid Mohammed 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 being absent in open court;

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

1.   The Form 86 be amended to name the Board as a putative respondent and the Director of Immigration as a putative interested party; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 15 December 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of an adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 19 October 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), which was made after a hearing on 15 January 2021 of a petition against the first-tier decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 26 May 2020.  A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1]. The Board assessed all applicable grounds in the Board’s Decision except torture risk under the Immigration Ordinance because that had been previously assessed by DI in 2013 and there was no appeal against that previous assessment.

2.The Applicant is an Indian national.  His non-refoulement claim was based on a feared risk of harm from an allegedly wealthy and influential moneylender. The fear arose from a commercial loan dispute, alongside a sur place refugee claim subsequently made fearing widespread violence from Hindus due to his Muslim faith.

3.The Board dismissed the petition based on an adverse credibility finding, concluding that the Applicant’s shifting testimony regarding the commercial loan dispute was entirely incredible and inconsistent with a genuine subjective fear.  The Board also highlighted that the Applicant’s actions, such as taking a trip to Hong Kong for sightseeing amidst alleged threats and abandoning a safe internal relocation place simply because it “was not his home”, were inconsistent with an imminent danger to his life.  Ultimately, the Board ruled that the dispute was entirely private and localized in nature, that his general fear of religious persecution as a Muslim following the 2020 Delhi riots was purely speculative, and that he could safely avoid any localized harm by utilizing the State’s protection mechanism or relocating internally to a populous city like Mumbai.

4.The Applicant has not set out any grounds of judicial review in the Form 86 or supporting affirmation against the Board’s Decision.  He was absent from the oral hearing before this Court he requested. 

5.I have considered the Board’s Decision vigorously.  I am unable to detect any reasonable argument that the Board’s Decision was vitiated by public law errors.  I therefore dismiss this leave application.

Dated the 25th day of June 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 25th June 2026

Wajid Mohammed

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 25th June 2026

Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 16994/20/6/27/IN3175

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 84/20 (Formerly RBCZ/2000001/20)

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


Form CALL-1