Muhammad Nasir v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1368/2026

[2026] HKCFI 5332

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1368 of 2026

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 Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K. W. Lung:

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.

Observation for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION  

1.By a consent Order dated 10 December 2025, the Decision dated 21 October 2021 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s 1^st Decision”) was quashed and the appeal was remitted to be assessed by a Board of different constitution. The Board held another hearing on 2 April 2026 for the re-hearing. The applicant attended the hearing and answered the Board’s questions. By the Board’s Decision dated 8 May 2026 (“the Board’s 2^nd Decision”), the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal.

2.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s 2^nd Decision, dismissing the appeal against the Director’s Decision as described below.

3.The applicant did not ask for a hearing.

The applicant  

4.The applicant is a national of Pakistan. He is an illegal immigrant. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by his enemies because of political dispute.

5.Details of his claim are set out in the Board’s 2^nd Decision. See hyperlink.
https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2026/HCAL001368_2026_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

The Director’s Decision

6.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.  risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b.  risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);

c.  risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

d.  risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

7.By way of Notice of Decision dated 15 June 2020 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

8.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. At the hearing before the Board, the applicant had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

9.Having considered the evidence and the country-of-origin information, the Board found that there was no evidence that he would not have state protection if he returns to Pakistan [64]-[66]; that there was no substantial ground for believing that the applicant will be subjected to Torture risk [71]. BOR 3 risk [76], BOR 2 risk [81], or Persecution risk [85]; and internal relocation is also viable [98].

10.For the reasons above, the Board dismissed his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

11.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 30 July 2026 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

12.The applicant did not raise any specific ground to challenge the Board’s Decision. He has attached a copy of the Board’s Decision to his affirmation.

DISCUSSION

13.The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).

14.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Since the Board had rejected his evidence on the facts of his claim, the applicant’s claim has no factual basis in support. The applicant has raised no reason to refute the Board’s finding of the facts.

15.In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:

“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and 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 or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.”

16.The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

17.I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

Dated the 23^rd 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