BabelCite

Khan Hasif v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Read the full judgment text of HCAL 1755/2021 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 25 June 2026.

1. By a Form 86 filed on 28 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 11 November 2021 ( “the Board’s Decision” ), which was made after a hearing on 24 March 2020 of a petition/appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration ( “DI” ) dated 12 November 2018.  A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink [1] .

Case No.HCAL 1755/2021[2026] HKCFI 3523
Court
High Court CFI
Date25 Jun 2026
Judge—
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCAL 1755/2021

[2026] HKCFI 3523

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1755 of 2021

BETWEEN
  Khan Hasif 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 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 (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 28 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 11 November 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), which was made after a hearing on 24 March 2020 of a petition/appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 12 November 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 being ill-treated or killed by his girlfriend’s brothers as they are against the relationship between him and the girlfriend.  Following a violent one-hour assault by his girlfriend’s furious brothers in August 2016, the Applicant treated his extensive injuries at home with ointment and bandage but not seeking medical or police assistance.  He subsequently fled across a network of friends’ places over several months, enduring a second beating at one location.  He later evaded his pursuers for a month at a final refuge in New Delhi prior to departing India.

3.The Board dismissed the appeal based on an overall adverse credibility finding, concluding that the Applicant’s testimony regarding a private relationship dispute with his girlfriend’s brothers was heavily exaggerated.  The Board highlighted that the Applicant’s oral evidence before the Board contradicted the claim form he submitted to and the interview record he had with the DI, regarding the duration of the assaults and the timelines of his subsequent stays in friends’ places.  Moreover, there was a finding that the harm he suffered, even if any, was not serious as he could treat the injuries at home with ointment and bandage.  The finding undermined his claimed fear of an imminent threat to his life.  Ultimately, the Board ruled that the dispute was entirely personal in nature, lacking any nexus to a Convention ground or any assertion of state acquiescence.  The Board also found that the Applicant as a young, able-bodied man could safely avoid any localized harm by relocating internally in India.

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

Khan Hasif

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 14516/18/11/359/IN2869

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 4503/18 (formerly RBCZ 10683/17)

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


Form CALL-1