Iqbal Shahbaz v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 792/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4419

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 792 of 2023

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 (Non-refoulement Claims) Val Chow:

1.  Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion as follows: -

a.  The Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the Putative Respondent; and

b.  The Director of Immigration be named as the Putative Interested Party.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 filed on 22 May 2023 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 12 May 2023 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.In the Form 86, the Applicant has named the Board as both the proposed respondent and the proposed interested party. As it is trite that the Board should be the proposed respondent whereas the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) should be the proposed interested party, I make an order to amend the Form 86 accordingly on the court’s own motion.

3.An oral hearing was requested by the Applicant. It took place before me on 20 July 2026 (the “Hearing”) and the Applicant attended in person.

Background

4.The Applicant’s background, the basis and history of his claim and the arguments he advanced had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and it is unnecessary for me to repeat the same here. The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference. In summary, the Applicant came from Pakistan. He claimed that the he would be harmed or killed by a Muhammad Imran (“Imran”) who was a member of the Pakistan Muslim League (N) (“PMLN”), a political party. The reason for harming him is that the Applicant had rejected Imran’s invitation to join the PMLN.

Discussion

5.The leave application is intended to be a filtering process and elaborate reasons are not necessary, see: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at §23. Hence, I shall set out the brief reasons for my decision below.

6.It is well-established that determination of the merits of a non-refoulement claim is essentially within the remit of the Director and the Board, who are the primary decision-makers in the evaluation of the evidence based on the materials available to them. A court will not usurp their primary decision-making role in a judicial review, which is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by the Board in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh in the absence of any legal error. A finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the Board, which this court will not interfere with unless such finding involved an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality: see Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.

7.An applicant, even if unrepresented, is required to properly identify the grounds of judicial review in the Form 86, and to fully and frankly disclose all material facts and potential legal answers, see: Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection HCAL 21/2015 (unreported, 22 December 2016) per Chow J (as he was then) at §142. Where a Form 86 contains only general assertions without particulars as to underlying facts or matters upon which the Board’s Decision is said to be erroneous, such assertions are not effective grounds to support a judicial review, see: Re Haider Khalil [2021] HKCA 223 at §16.

8.The Applicant did not provide any grounds in support of the Leave Application in his application papers. This failure alone justifies refusal of leave.

9.At the Hearing, the Applicant told the court that he got married in Hong Kong and he is now applying for a visa to remain here as a dependent. I do not see how this development is relevant to his non-refoulement claim.

10.In any event, having considered the Board’s Decision, I am not satisfied that there is any reasonably arguable case that it is susceptible to judicial review on the grounds of illegality, irrationality (even on the enhanced standard) and procedural impropriety.

11.I am satisfied that the Board has given adequate reasons for its decision. Amongst others, the Board was plainly correct in finding that there was no evidence of any real risk of serious harm because the Applicant’s account was incredible (§60), having regard to the serious discrepancies and inconsistencies in the material aspects of the Applicant factual account given in his Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”), screening interview and when he was asked to recount the historical threat from Imran at the hearing before the Board (the “Board Hearing”), for example: -

(1)  In his NCF, the Applicant claimed that he was attacked by Imran and his men armed with a knife and a hockey stick (the “First Assault”). However, this was not mentioned by him at all at the Board Hearing (§28, 43, 54-57).

(2)  More importantly, the Applicant claimed in his NCF and at the screening interview that a few days after the First Assault, he was abducted from his home by Iman and his men and was beaten up and poorly treated for 15-18 days. He was only released after his family sold their home to pay ransom to Imran and afterwards he was hospitalised for a few days (§§31-35). This significant event was not mentioned at all by the Applicant in the Board Hearing (§§46-49, 57, 59).

12.Even if I were to assume in favour of the Applicant that he was indeed under threat of serious physical harm from Imran, it is clear that internal relocation alternatives were available to the Applicant. The Applicant, as an able-bodied adult with reasonable education, should have no difficulty relocating to places such as Karachi or Kashmir. After all, Pakistan is a large and populous country. There is no reliable evidence that Imran had the motivation or the resources to pursue the Applicant throughout the country. As noted in the Board’s Decision, the Applicant had in fact admitted to the Board that he faced no problem in Kashmir where he has relatives (§§63-68).

13.In short, I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success. Accordingly, I refuse to grant leave for judicial review.

Conclusion

14.In the premises, I make an order that the Form 86 be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 7^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