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

HCAL 144/2023

[2026] HKCFI 5296

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 144 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 oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

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

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a Form 86 filed on 2 February 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 16 January 2023 (the “Board”, the “Board’s Decision”).

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

3.The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the Leave Application, which took place on 17 June 2026 (the “Hearing”). At the Hearing, the Applicant said that he does not have anything to add orally.

Background

4.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

5.In the Affirmation, the Applicant raised some grounds in support of the Leave Application. I will summarise them below:

a.  The Board did not consider the Applicant’s claim and dismissed it without thinking about the Applicant’s life;

b.  The Board did not accept the Applicant’s documents as they were in the Applicant’s mother language which the Board did not understand. The Applicant asked for time to translate the documents into English but his request was not granted;

c.  The interpreter did not assist the Applicant. When the Applicant indicated that he did not understand, the interpreter became angry. The interpreter asked the Applicant not to prolong the interview as he had another job;

d.  As the Applicant is a Pakistani, his life is threatened.

e.  The Board did not consider other factors, e.g. economic or social life.

6.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.

7.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.

8.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. The Board took the view that the Applicant has failed to establish any well-founded fear of being harmed or killed if he returns to Pakistan, or that the complained harm/threat has reached the prescribed threshold of severity: see the Board’s Decision paras 11-26. Further, the Board found that adequate state protection is available to the Applicant in Pakistan to protect him from the alleged threats: see the Board’s Decision paras 27-32. The Board therefore found that the Applicant would not 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 45-50. I do not consider there to be any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

9.As to the grounds raised in the Affirmation:

a.  With respect to paragraphs 5a, 5d and 5e above, as I have explained in paragraph 8 above, the Board had thoroughly considered the Applicant’s case before reaching the Board’s Decision;

b.  As to paragraph 5b, the Applicant has failed to identify the alleged documents which were not translated and how they would be relevant to his case;

c.  As to paragraphs 5c above, these were only bare assertions made by the Applicant. As recorded in the Board’s Decision, e.g. paragraphs 6-7, the Applicant responded to the Board’s inquiries without any issue. There is no record in the Board’s Decision that the Applicant had raised any complaint against the interpreter during the hearing before the Board.

10.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

11.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