Muhammad Imran v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 901/2026

[2026] HKCFI 4319

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 901 of 2026

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 oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

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

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 4 May 2026 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”), dismissing the appeal against the Director’s Decision as described below.

2.The applicant appeared before the Court on 20 July 2026.

The applicant

3.The applicant is a national of Pakistan. He is an illegal immigrant. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by a person called Ansar and his associates because he took the money but refused to plant a bomb for them.

4.Details of his claim are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2026/HCAL000901_2026_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

The Director’s Decisions

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 way of Notice of Decision dated 18 June 2014 and Notice of Further Decision dated 6 January 2017 (“the Director’s Decisions”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

7.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decisions to the Board. On 27 April 2026, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal. He had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

8.Having considered the evidence, the Board found that he was not a witness of truth because there were numerous inconsistencies in his evidence and he was unable to reconcile the inconsistencies. Furthermore, his evidence was vague and unbelievable. [34]-[37] The Board further found that the dispute was localized; that the government was not involved and protection will be available if he returns to Pakistan [37], and internal relocation is also viable. [61]

9.For the reasons above, the Board dismissed his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decisions.

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

10.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 12 May 2026 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

11.In support of his application, the applicant has raised that the Board did not make sufficient enquiry into his case; that the Board failed to give sufficient chance to him to arrange the relevant evidence and he considers this is unfair to him.

DISCUSSION

12.The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).

13.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, the applicant reiterated his complaint that the Board did not give him time to obtain the documents in support of his appeal. However, to my questions, the applicant said that there is no document to prove the agreement for him to plant a bomb or to obtain money from Ansar. He was unable to identify what document he wanted to produce to the Board for its consideration.

14.The other reason under paragraph 11 is his bare assertion without any evidence in support.

15.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.”

16.The applicant has no valid reason to challenge the Board’s Decision. There is no legitimate reason for this Court to interfere with the Board’s Decision.

17.The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

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

Dated the 5^th day of August 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