Case Document

100%

HCAL 1304/2022

[2026] HKCFI 4934

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1304 OF 2022

BETWEEN

	Raza 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 (Ord 53 r 3)

Following:

consideration of the documents only; or

consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court / the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan:

1. Extension of time for the application for leave to apply for Judicial Review of the decision of Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 15 July 2022 be refused; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.The Applicant is a 42-year-old national of Pakistan who had previously in 2015 illegally entered Hong Kong and was subsequently repatriated back to Pakistan in January 2018 but some 2 years later on 10 October 2020 he sneaked back into Hong Kong and was arrested by police on 21 October 2020. After he was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, he raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if he returned to Pakistan he would be harmed or killed by certain local supporters of the political party Pakistan Muslim League (N) (“PML(N)”) as he supported their rival Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (“PTI”). He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2.The Applicant was born and raised in Lahore City, Punjab, Pakistan. After leaving school he worked as a machine operator and subsequently ran his own machinery business in his home district, and supported PTI and regularly attended their local meetings and activities without holding any official post in the party.

3.In 2013, while participating in some election campaign activities for PTI, the Applicant and his fellow supporters were confronted by a group of PML(N) supporters which deteriorated into a fight between the 2 groups and resulted in some injuries on both sides.

4.Shortly after the incident while on his way to work on his motorcycle, the Applicant was struck by a vehicle driven by a known local PML(N) supporter that he suffered a fractured knee and was hospitalized for medical treatments to his injury.

5.About 2 months later the Applicant’s machine shop was badly damaged in a fire which he suspected was caused by those PML(N) supporters against him and became fearful for his safety, and so he fled from his home district for Karachi to stay away from threats from the PML(N) until February 2015 when he thought it was safe to return to his home district.

6.However, one day shortly after his return and while he was having meals with some friends in a restaurant, some men driving by on motorcycles fired shots into the restaurant injuring a security guard, and as he suspected that the attack was intended for him, the Applicant immediately fled from his home district again for Karachi.

7.Later when he heard that the PML(N) supporters had found out about his location in Karachi and were on the way to look for him, the Applicant therefore departed Pakistan in August 2015 for China, and from there he later sneaked into Hong Kong and raised a non-refoulement claim for protection, but before his claim could be determined, he requested to voluntarily return to his home country and was accordingly repatriated in January 2018 to Pakistan.

8.Upon returning to his home in Lahore, one day in July 2018 while assisting his friends at PTI campaigning for the national election, they were attacked by a group of PML(N) supporters until interrupted by the police, during which the Applicant was injured in his left eyebrow which subsequently required treatment in a local clinic.

9.As a result, the Applicant felt that it was no longer safe for him to remain in Pakistan, and so on 22 November 2019 he again departed for China, and from there he again sneaked into Hong Kong, and upon his arrest by the police he raised another non-refoulement claim for protection, for which he completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 17 June 2021 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation.

10.By a Notice of Decision dated 14 September 2021, the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“Torture Risk”), risk of his absolute or non-derogable rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 (“HKBOR”) being violated including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 Risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of HKBOR (“BOR 3 Risk”), and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Persecution Risk”).

11.In his decision, the Director took into account all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from those local PML(N) supporters upon his return to Pakistan as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from them, that there is no evidence of any real intention of those PML(N) supporters to seriously harm or kill him or any political reason for them to target him given that he was just an ordinary PTI supporter without holding any official post in the party, that in any event in the absence of any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant if resorted to, and that reliable and objective Country of Origin Information (“COI”) shows that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in Pakistan with a large population of 238 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 796,000 square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from his home district in large cities such as Islamabad or Multan where it would be difficult if not impossible for anyone to locate him.

12.On 28 September 2021, the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which he attended an oral hearing on 10 January 2022 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions raised of his claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 15 July 2022, his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

13.In its decision[1], the Board found material inconsistencies and discrepancies in the Applicant’s evidence that it doubted the credibility of his claim of fear of harm from any local PML(N) supporters over their political dispute that caused him to leave his country to come to Hong Kong to seek protection, that even if his account of events prior to his departure of Pakistan that there was no reliable evidence of any real intention of those PML(N) supporters to seriously harm or kill him or any political reason for them to target him for harm given that he was just an ordinary PTI supporter without any official post in the party, and that in any event in the absence of any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon his return to Pakistan if resorted to as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for him to move safely to other parts of the country away from his home district without any risk of being located by anyone that his claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

14.On 22 November 2022, the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in his Form or his supporting affirmation of the same date to which he just attached a copy of the decision but without putting forth any proper ground for his intended challenge.

15.By then the Applicant was also out of time with his application, as Order 53 rule 4(1) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A requires that an application for leave to apply for judicial review be made promptly and in any event within three months from the day when grounds for the application first arose unless the Court considers that there is good reason to extend the period within which the application shall be made.

16.As the last day of the three-month period for him to file his Form 86 fell on 15 November 2022 after discounting the month of August 2022 for court’s vacation, the Applicant was therefore some 7 days late with his application, and in considering whether to extend time, the Court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the merits of the intended application; and (iv) any prejudice to the putative respondent and to public administration: AW v Director of Immigration [2016] 2 HKC 393.

17.In the Applicant’s case, a delay of 7 days may not be considered as substantial or significant, for which he did not provide any explanation or reasons in his Form or affirmation, and as the court shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 15 July 2022 to his then reported address without being returned through undelivered post, I am unable to see any good reason for his delay, but given its relative insignificance, I propose to focus on the merits, if any, of his intended application.

18.However, as noted above that the Applicant has also failed to put forward any proper ground for his intended challenge, and that in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in his process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any merits in his intended application either.

19.As has been repeatedly emphasized by the Court of Appeal, judicial review does not operate as a rehearing of a non-refoulement claim when the proper occasion for the Applicant to present and articulate his claim is in the screening process and interview before the Immigration Department and in the process before the Board where the evaluation of the risk of harm is primarily a matter for the Director and the Board as they are entitled to make such evaluation based on the evidence available to them that the court will not usurp their role as primary decision makers in the absence of any legal error or procedural unfairness or irrationality in their decisions being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, as judicial review is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by them in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh: 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.

20.In the Applicant’s case, the Board rejected his claim for the thorough and detailed analysis and reasoning set out in its decision with the benefit of hearing him in his oral evidence and his answers to questions raised of his claim, and in the absence of any error of law or procedural unfairness in his process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis to challenge the finding of the Board.

21.Furthermore, the fact is that it has also been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risk of harm in the Applicant’s claim even if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for him to relocate to other parts of Pakistan, there is simply no justification to afford him with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.

22.Having considered the decisions of both the Director and the Board with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in either of them, nor any failure on their part to apply high standards of fairness in their consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s claim.

23.Moreover, the Applicant has recently on 21 July 2026 in writing requested to withdraw his application as his issues in his home country have been resolved and that he now wants to return to Pakistan as soon as possible.

24.In the premises, as I am for the given reasons not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and in view of his latest confirmation that there is no further issue for him to return to his home country, I accordingly dismiss his leave application.

Dated the 1^st day of September 2026

(Joyce Ooi)
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 to the Applicant on 1 September 2026 Raza Ali Applicant’s ref. no.: Nil.		Sent 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 1 September 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 18856/21/9/208/P3538 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 818/21 (formerly RBCZ 10822/20) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)