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

HCAL 67/2023

[2026] HKCFI 5294

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 67 of 2023

BETWEEN

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 the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Sabrina Ho:

1.  The Form 86 be amended by naming the Director of Immigration as the putative interested party.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 17 January 2023 (the “Form”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 19 October 2022 (the “Board”, the “Board’s Decision”).

2.In the Form, the Applicant stated the address of the Board as an interested party. I will amend the Form on my own motion to name the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) as the putative interested party instead.

3.In the Affirmation in support of the Leave Application (the “Affirmation”), the Applicant raised various grounds in support of his Leave Application, see below.

4.The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the Leave Application. The hearing took place on 17 June 2026 (the “Hearing”) but the Applicant was absent. Notice of Hearing was issued to the Applicant in advance at the Applicant’s address provided by the Immigration Department on 27 February 2026. The said Notice has not been returned as undelivered.

5.I take the view that sufficient notice had been given to the Applicant in respect of the Hearing. I will proceed with the Hearing in the absence of the Applicant.

Background

6.The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the arguments he advanced had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and it is not necessary for me to repeat the same here. The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference.

Discussion

7.The Applicant raised various grounds in support of the Leave Application in his Affirmation. I will summarise them below:

a.  The Applicant seeks an order to preserve his anonymity in the judicial review proceedings;

b.  The Board adopted a cherry-picking, biased and formula approach, which is highly unfair and prejudicial;

c.  The Board failed to meet the necessary high standard of fairness;

d.  The Board erred in law and/or acted in a procedurally unfair manner by wholesale dismissing the Applicant’s evidence based on vague assertions that those amounted to hearsay or speculation;

e.  The Board wrongly excluded matters entirely from the balancing process on the basis of its belief;

f.  The Board failed to take into account humanitarian considerations when making its finding;

g.  The Board’s assessment of the Applicant’s credibility was procedurally unfair and/or irrational.

8.The relevant legal principles are well established. The Court’s role in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. The primary decision makers are the Director and the Board. Though in non-refoulement cases, the Court will adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinising the decision of the Board due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, the Court should not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information (COI) materials, 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, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at para 14; Re Limbu Birkhaman [2019] HKCA 50 at para 11. There must be a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted: see Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676.

9.Having considered all the relevant materials before me, I do not consider the Applicant’s intended challenge against the Board’s Decision to be reasonably arguable with any realistic prospect of success.

10.I have reviewed the Board’s Decision in detail. The Board had fully considered the Applicant’s evidence and his grounds for challenging the Director’s decision in refusing his claim for non-refoulement protection. After carefully considering all the evidence before it, the Board found the Applicant’s case to be incredible. The Board found that the Applicant does not face any real risk of serious or fatal harm should he return to Pakistan: see the Board’s Decision para 57-75. Further, the Board considered that according to the COI, overall, the police force in Pakistan is willing and generally able to respond to the needs of the Pakistan community and there is no evidence to suggest that the Applicant would be denied protection by the entire police force: see the Board’s Decision paras 76‑80. Lastly, the Board found that there are viable relocation options available to the Applicant: see the Board’s Decision para 83. On the above bases, the Board found that the Applicant has failed to show that he would face any Persecution Risk, BOR 2 Risk, BOR 3 Risk or Torture Risk[2] if he returns to Pakistan and rejected the Applicant’s appeal: see the Board’s Decision paras 87-91. I do not consider there to be any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

11.For the reasons explained above, I also reject the unparticularised complaints by the Applicant in paragraph 7 above. As to the Applicant’s request for an anonymity order, I do not see any reason for granting such an order.

12.Leave application of this sort is meant to be a filtering process and this Court is not expected to give elaborated reasons for its decision: see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at para 23. I have considered all the relevant materials in reaching the present decision.

Conclusion

13.For the reasons stated above, I will dismiss the Leave Application.

Dated the 18^th day of September 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