Khan Muhammad Gohar Irshad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1579/2025

[2026] HKCFI 3447

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1579 of 2025

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 Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

1.  The extension of time for the application for Judicial Review be refused; and

2.  The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 24 March 2025 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”). His application is late. His application shall not be later than 3 months from the date of the Board’s Decision[1], which expired on 24 June 2025. His application was filed on 10 July 2025, which is late for 16 days. This issue will be dealt with below.

2.The applicant did not ask for a hearing.

The applicant

3.The applicant is a national of Pakistan. He is an illegal immigrant. He lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by Barjees Tahir for political reasons.

4.Details of the applicant’s story can be found in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001579_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf.

The Director’s Decision

5.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.  risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b.  risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);

c.  risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

d.  risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

6.By Notice of Decision dated 10 January 2025 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director refused the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

7.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 6 and 18 March 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing. He had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

8.Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below.

(1)  The applicant’s evidence relating to the facts of his claim was based on unreliable and incredible evidence. The Board attached no weight to his evidence that there was a threat to harm from his enemies. [84]

(2)  He failed to establish that he suffered ill-treatment that attained a minimum level of severity under BOR 3 risk and that he will suffer such ill-treatment if he returns to Pakistan. [87]

(3)  BOR 2 risk is not engaged. [90]

(4)  He failed to show any Torture risk if he returns to Pakistan. [91]

(5)  He does not have a valid claim on BOR 3 risk. [92]

(6)  He failed his claim on Persecution risk, too. [93]

9.For the reasons above, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

10.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 10 July 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

11.The applicant said in his affirmation that he wanted to talk to the adjudicator again. He did not explain why he had delayed in his appeal.

DISCUSSION

12.AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015, §27 the Court of Appeal held that for extension of time for making the application for leave to apply for judicial review, the court has to consider, inter alia, the prospect of success of the intended application. I shall consider the merits of the applicant’s case.

13.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

14.In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:

“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and 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 or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.”

15.The applicant has not raised any valid ground to challenge the Board’s findings.

16.In the circumstances, the applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

17.I refuse to extend time for the applicant to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

Dated the 14^th day of July 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