Inzamam Ul Haq v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 635/2023

[2026] HKCFI 5308

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 635 of 2023

BETWEEN

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;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Andrew Li:

1.  The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended to name only the Torture Claims Appeal Board as the putative respondent and the Director of Immigration as the putative interested party; and

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 May 2023 (“the Form 86”), the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 19 April 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”), which affirmed a decision by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 28 September 2021 in refusing the applicant’s non‑refoulement protection claim. He named the Board as both the putative respondent and interested party.

2.I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to name only the Board as the putative respondent and the Director as the putative interested party.

3.The applicant requested for a hearing and he attended the same. However, when asked if he has anything to add besides the matters stated in his application, the applicant answered in the negative.

BACKGROUND

4.The applicant is a national of Pakistan. He seeks non-refoulement protection on the basis that if he is refouled, he would be harmed by a late member of the Provincial Assembly by the name of Chaudhry Shaukat Manzoor Cheema (“CSMC”) or his family members due to a land dispute. His personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the Board’s Decision, which can be accessed through a hyperlink[1]. I shall not repeat the same here.

DISCUSSION

5.In a judicial review, this court does not provide a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement case an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the Board is required given the seriousness of the issue at hand, this court should not usurp the role of the Board, which together with the Director are the primary decision-makers. This court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board (Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, [14(1)]). There must be a reasonably arguable claim with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted (Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung & Anor (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676).

6.In the Form 86 and his affirmation filed in support of the application, the applicant has attached a very elaborated 17-page document labelled as “Grounds on which Relief is sought”. However, a closer look at the document reveals that it contains only general summary of the law and generic grounds for seeking leave for judicial review in such cases. In addition, 8 out of 17 pages are duplicated copy of the same document which means that the same grounds had been repeated twice.

7.It has been held that the leave application operates as a “filtering” process and there is no requirement or expectation for the court to give elaborate reasons for its decision: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at [23]. It is sufficient to merely state the court’s observations after considering the Board’s Decision and the materials the applicant adduced.

8.I noted that the 9 grounds purportedly relied on by the applicant are all general and generic grounds.

9.It is apparent that whoever drafted these grounds on behalf of the applicant – whether the applicant himself or someone else – has not connected the grounds to the specific findings made by the Board. They did not specifically address the issues raised and the findings and conclusions reached by the Board.

10.Looking at the Board’s Decision, the Board took into account the correct legal principles in respect of each of the four applicable grounds under the USM [13-20].

11.Contrary to the applicant’s allegation, the Board had carefully taken into consideration of the applicant’s case and evidence. The Board found that the evidence given by the applicant was inconsistent and that he was not an honest and credible witness. In short, the Board did not find his account of a land dispute with CSMC credible [50-68]. These are factual findings within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Director and the Board which the court will not intervene unless there are public law grounds to do so.

12.After thoroughly analysing and assessing the above, the Board came to the findings and conclusions that none of the grounds was made out [71-78].

13.Having looked at the Board’s Decision carefully, I am not able to find the Board has failed to consider any of the matters raised by the applicant in his claims and/or failed to provide any adequate reason in its decision.

14.Despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I could not find any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. The applicant’s intended challenge to the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable and has no realistic prospect of success.

CONCLUSION

15.For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that this court should intervene by way of judicial review. I therefore dismiss the application.

Dated the 22^nd 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