Case Document

100%

HCAL 1583/2021

[2026] HKCFI 4551

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1583 OF 2021

BETWEEN

	Haider Ali	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board	Putative
		Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested Party

Application for leave to apply for judicial review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Order 53, rule 3)

Following:

consideration of the documents only; or

consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the applicant or counsel in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Michael WONG:

1. On this court’s own motion, the name of the putative respondent be amended to “Torture Claims Appeal Board” and the name of the putative interested party be amended to “Director of Immigration”.

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

Observations for the applicant:

The Leave Application

1.By way of Form 86 dated and filed on 17 November 2021, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) in respect of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 10 November 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”). The Board’s Decision can be viewed in the following hyperlink:-

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL001583_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.The Board found that the applicant’s appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 15 March 2021 (“the Director’s Decision”) failed on all the applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (“the USM”). Hence, the Board confirmed the Director’s Decision, which rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

Amendments

3.In Form 86, the applicant named “Torture Claime Appel Bord / NON Refoulemant claim Petion office” as the putative respondent and “Diretor of Immgration Deportment” as the putative interested party.

4.In fact, only the Board should be named as the putative respondent, and the Director should be named as the putative interested party.

5.This court therefore makes an order on its own motion to amend the name of the putative respondent to “Torture Claims Appeal Board” and the name of the putative interested party to “Director of Immigration”.

The applicant’s case

6.It is not necessary for this court to repeat the details of the applicant’s case here as the same were set out in the Board’s Decision, which can be viewed in the hyperlink above.

7.In sum, the applicant claimed for non-refoulement protection because if refouled to Pakistan, he would be at great risk of being harmed or killed by Khizar Butt (“Butt”) and his gang, whom the applicant had a fight with in a cricket match in August 2018.

Disposal on paper

8.The applicant did not request for an oral hearing of the Leave Application. This court is also satisfied that the Leave Application can be disposed of based on the written materials before this court. Hence, the Leave Application is dealt with on paper.

Grounds for judicial review

9.The applicant is required to identify clearly the grounds for the intended judicial review (see Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection, HCAL 21 of 2015, dated 22.12.2016).

10.The applicant did not advance any ground for his intended judicial review in Form 86, nor in his supporting affirmation dated 17 November 2021.

Discussion

11.The role of the court in judicial review is not to re-assess the non-refoulement claims afresh. The primary decision-makers in a claim for non-refoulement are the Director and the Board. They alone assess the evidence and find facts including those relating to the matters allegedly giving rise to the non-refoulement claim, risk of harm, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation. The court will scrutinize the Board’s decision and intervene by way of judicial review only for errors of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524).

12.Thus, despite the fact that the applicant failed to advance any ground for the intended judicial review, this court will scrutinize the Board’s Decision for any errors of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality as aforesaid.

13.In assessing the appeal/petition by the applicant, the Board held an oral hearing on 17 August 2021. The applicant was present and was thus given the chance to present his case to the Board in person.

14.As can be seen from the Board’s Decision, the Board questioned the applicant extensively at the Board’s hearing to try to understand his case better. The Board gave full and detailed reasoning in rejecting the applicant’s claims. Its assessment on the credibility of the applicant’s claims and evidence were laid out in paragraphs 71 to 91 of the Board’s Decision, and it is not necessary to repeat the same here.

15.In gist, the Board gave the benefit of the doubt to the applicant to the extent that the applicant did have a fight with Butt and his friends and at least one spectator in a cricket match in August 2018, and that Butt and his friend had assaulted the applicant two months later in October 2018, resulting in the applicant’s burn injuries on his thighs. The Board also accepted that the applicant, instead of Butt and his gang, was arrested by the police after the assault in October 2018. The Board also extended the benefit of the doubt to the applicant and accepted that he moved from place to place in Pakistan.

16.However, the Board had laid out its many doubts as to the credibility of the applicant’s claim regarding Butt’s ongoing adverse interest in him. The Board did not accept that Butt pursued the applicant to Gujranwala with the intention of harming or killing him. The Board did not accept that the claimed incident in Gujranwala occurred as claimed. Further, the Board did not accept that the shooting incident in the sugar cane field in Faisalabad occurred at all. The Board also refused to accept that Butt and his men pursued the applicant to Karachi, and that the incident described by the applicant occurred.

17.In summary, the Board accepted that there might have been some animosity and some insult present. However, based on all the available evidence and information, the Board did not accept that there was any evidence of an ongoing serious intention by Butt to target the applicant for harm of any kind which enlivened the applicant’s need for non-refoulement protection. The Board found that the applicant did not face a real risk of serious harm, or any form of proscribed harm from Butt, or from anyone, should he return to Pakistan now and in the reasonably foreseeable future.

18.Despite its findings as summarised above, the Board went on to assess the availability of state protection. While the Board accepted that there existed degrees of corruption and ineffectiveness in part of the Pakistani police service, the Board found no evidence that the applicant would be targeted by the police themselves. Further, the Board found that while police protection was not without some defect, the Board did not find that it would be inadequate or that it would be withheld from the applicant for any reason. The Board found that, overall, in the remote possibility that the applicant required police protection, the applicant could access it at an adequate level, or he could otherwise seek remedy for unsatisfactory police service, utilising the mechanisms available to him in his country.

19.Further, the Board had laid out its full reasons in paragraphs 95 to 97 of the Board’s Decision for the finding that the applicant could find employment and make a living and a life in Islamabad or in Karachi, or in any one of a number of other cities or locations in Pakistan. There was no evidence that such relocation would impose unreasonable hardship on the applicant. Thus, internal relocation was viable to the applicant.

20.The Board concluded that the applicant’s claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all the applicable grounds under the USM.

21.The finding of facts relating to a non-refoulement claim, including the assessment of evidence and risk of harm, was solely within the ambit of the Board in dealing with the applicant’s appeal/petition. This court finds nothing wrong or unreasonable in the way the Board reached its decision.

22.Having rigorously examined the Board’s Decision and the evidence with anxious scrutiny, this court is satisfied that the Board had correctly set out the law and key legal principles relating to the applicable grounds under the USM, the burden of proof and the standard of proof. The Board also correctly identified the issues and observed a very high standard of fairness. This court could detect no errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. The Board’s Decision does satisfy the enhanced Wednesbury test, ie it is not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational for the Board to reach its decision.

23.As held by the Court of Final Appeal in Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676, for the court to grant leave to apply for judicial review, the claim has to be a reasonably arguable claim which enjoys realistic prospects of success. It is the view of this court that the applicant has failed to establish such a claim and hence leave must be refused.

Conclusion

24.For reasons aforesaid, the Leave Application is dismissed.

Dated the 12^th day of August 2026

( Gladys LEE )
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 his 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/Handed to the applicant/the applicant’s solicitors on: 12/08/2026 Applicant’s ref. no: Nil		Sent/Handed 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: 12/08/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative respondent’s ref. no.: USM 17771/21/3/90/P3429 Director of Immigration Putative interested party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 943/20 (formerly RBCZ 98/20) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)