Mohammed Nizamuddin v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1748/2021[2026] HKCFI 3522

Court

High Court CFI

Date25 Jun 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1748/2021

[2026] HKCFI 3522

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1748 of 2021

BETWEEN
	Mohammed Nizamuddin	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board /	Putative
	Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office	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:

1. The Form 86 be amended to name the Board as putative respondent and the Director of Immigration (instead of the Board) 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 23 December 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 3 November 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), which was made after a hearing on 1 February 2021 of a petition/appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 14 August 2018. A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1].

2.The Applicant is an Indian national whose non-refoulement claim was based on a feared risk of harm from an influential man named Mr F. The Applicant alleged that if he returns to India, he faces a life-threatening risk of harm or murder by Mr F and his family, who have political power through the Bharatiya Janata Party. The risk allegedly stemmed from a heated personal conflict after Mr F brought disgrace to the Applicant’s family by breaking his engagement to the Applicant’s sister to marry another woman.

3.The Board rejected the Applicant’s claim, ruling that his narrative regarding a life‑threatening dispute with Mr F and the subsequent police charges was fabricated and riddled with material inconsistencies. The Applicant made several claims including that he was criminally charged for assaulting Mr F with hockey sticks and steel rods, his and his family’s residences were repeatedly ransacked, and his father died of a heart attack following an armed threat by Mr F and his men. However, he was found to be highly evasive under questioning and kept inventing contradictory evidence on the spot. His credibility was severely undermined because he gave conflicting accounts about who witnessed one of the house attacks and how he departed India using his own passport without any interference from the State authorities. Ultimately, because his entire testimony was assessed to be untruthful and unsupported by documentation, the Board determined that the Applicant faces no genuine risk of harm, systematically dismissing his appeal/petition on all applicable grounds under persecution risk, torture risk, and the risks under BOR 2 and 3.

4.The Applicant has not set out any grounds of judicial review in the Form 86 or supporting affirmation against the Board’s Decision. In the oral hearing before this Court, the Applicant repeated his personal background information, adding that he married his wife in Hong Kong in 2018 and that their daughter was born in Hong Kong in January 2021. He said it will be difficult for his wife (who has made separate non-refoulement claim) to look after their daughter alone if he is not allowed to prolong his stay in Hong Kong. The Applicant confirmed that the care of the daughter was not a reason concerning his own non-refoulement claim handled by the DI and the Board in the subject case. In these circumstances, his situation in Hong Kong does not add anything to this application for leave to apply for judicial review.

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 25^th 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 25^th June 2026 Mohammed Nizamuddin 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 25^th June 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 13185/18/8/455/IN2627 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2706/18 (formerly RBCZ 10753/17) 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/HCAL001748_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf