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

HCAL 856/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4420

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 856 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 that the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the Putative Respondent.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 2 June 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 19 May 2023 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.To make sure that the Board is properly named, 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. He confirmed that he had nothing else to add to the Leave Application.

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 short, he fears that he will be harmed by his uncle (the “Uncle”) and his uncle’s sons (the “Adversaries”) if he were to return to Pakistan because the Adversaries have conspired to take over the land owned by the Applicant’s father (the “Father”).

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.The relevant general principles are well established. Judicial review does not operate as a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement cases, the Court applies a high standard of fairness to review the decision of the Board with anxious scrutiny due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, the Court must not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information (“COI”) materials, risk of harm, availability of 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, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board, see: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14.

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.Apart from expressing general disagreement with the Board’s Decision, the Applicant complained in his affirmation in support of the Form 86 that he did not have a fair hearing before the Board due to language issues: -

(1)  Documents submitted by the Applicant in his native language (the “Documents”) were rejected by the Board as the Board could not understand the Documents. The Board also refused to give the Applicant time to arrange for translation of the Documents into English.

(2)  The interpreter was impatient with the Applicant at the hearing.

9.In my view, these allegations are devoid of merits: -

(1)  These grounds appear to be based on a generic template. In any event, they are vague and wholly unparticularised. For example, there is no attempt to identify what the Documents were and how they relate to the Applicant’s case. The Applicant also failed to spell out in what manner was the interpretation inadequate and how it gave rise to unfairness to the Applicant.

(2)  Contrary to the Applicant’s claim, it is recorded in the Board’s Decision (§3) that the Applicant in fact confirmed to the Board that he had no further documents to add. He was also able to answer questions and was given the opportunity to clarify his case and make submissions without any indication of difficulties in interpretation.

10.In any event, having looked at the Board’s Decision, I do not find any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality which can give rise to a reasonably arguable case for review.

11.I am satisfied that the Board’s Decision satisfies the enhanced Wednesbury test. The Board has given adequate reasons for its decision. Amongst others, the Board is plainly correct in finding that there is no evidence of any real risk of serious harm because the Applicant’s evidence: -

(1)  The Applicant’s allegation that the Uncle had (through his son Ibrahim who is said to be a policeman) exercised influence over the police so as to prevent the Applicant from making a complaint to the police is speculative and without basis. If the Uncle indeed had such influence, he could have easily procured the police to arrest the Applicant when he injured Yasir, who is one of the Uncle’s sons in April 2018 (i.e. the so-called “First Incident”) (§§7c, 38).

(2)  In relation to the so-called “Second Incident” which took place in May 2018, the injuries that were said to be suffered by the Applicant and the Father were not serious and the Applicant was able to leave to go to Lahore without seeking medical treatment. If the Adversaries had truly intended to kill the Applicant, they could have easily done so as they have allegedly brought wooden sticks with them and the Applicant’s party was outnumbered (§§7d, 40).

(3)  In the “Third Incident” which took place about 2 weeks after the 2^nd Incident, the Uncle came to the Applicant with about 10 men to demand the Applicant’s father to transfer the land. They only cut the Applicant’s forearm with a knife and hit his father’s head, causing it to bleed. The injuries were not serious as the Applicant was able to leave his hometown immediately without seeking medical treatment. Again, the Adversaries could have easily killed or seriously injured the Applicant and his father if they had such intention. (§§7e, 40).

12.More importantly, despite the Applicant’s claim of the Adversaries’ desire to acquire the Father’s Land, it is not disputed that the Adversaries did not do any harm to the Father and his family who remained in Pakistan since the Applicant left the country (§§43, 46, 49).

13.In any event, it is clear that, the Applicant, as an adult with reasonable education and no serious health issues, should have no difficulty relocating to large cities such as Karachi or Hyderabad (§§54-56). As the Applicant encountered no difficulty in leaving Pakistan through official channels (§50), this shows that the state authorities had no interest (whether under the alleged influence of the Adversaries or otherwise) in pursuing him.

14.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

15.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