Case Document

100%

HCAL 1462/2023

[2026] HKCFI 5725

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1462 OF 2023

BETWEEN

	Mir Afzal	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:

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.The Applicant is a 29-year-old national of Pakistan who entered Hong Kong illegally one day in June 2020 and was arrested by police some 6 months later on 30 December 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 some local villagers over their land dispute with his father and/or the family of his former girlfriend who disapproved their relationship. He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2.The Applicant was born and raised in Village Mallah, Formuli, Hazro, Attock, Punjab, Pakistan. After leaving school he assisted in his father’s meat shop in his home village, and dated his girlfriend whom he met at school.

3.In about 2015 he and his girlfriend decided to get married, but when he made the marriage proposal to her parents, her father refused and threatened him that there would be serious consequences if he did not end the relationship. As a result, the Applicant became fearful for his safety and stopped seeing his girlfriend and eventually ended the relationship, but he was still fearful of being harmed by her father who was influential in the village.

4.In 2019 his father was approached by 2 local villagers who were wealthy businessmen who wished to purchase his land in Attock City which his father had inherited from his father, but when his father refused to sell the land as he had planned to build a family home on the land, the 2 villagers became furious and made threats against his father, and one day while the Applicant and his brother were assisting his father in the construction on the land, the 2 villagers came with their men and attacked them that they suffered cuts and bruises all over their body.

5.As a result the Applicant’s father became fearful and moved the family to Rawalpindi in late 2019, while the Applicant moved to Walia to stay with one of his uncles, but when he later heard that the 2 villagers were still looking for him everywhere, the Applicant decided that it was no longer safe to remain in Pakistan, and so on 5 December 2019 he departed for China, and from there he later sneaked into Hong Kong, and upon his arrest by the police he then raised his non-refoulement claim for protection, for which he completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 23 August 2021 and attended a screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).

6.By a Notice of Decision dated 23 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”).

7.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 the 2 local villagers and/or the family of his former girlfriend 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 either of them to seriously harm or kill him other than his own suspicions or speculations when the land dispute was between the 2 villagers with his father only while there is simply no reason for the family of his former girlfriend to still have any adverse interests in him after all these years since he ended his relationship with his former girlfriend, that in any event these were private and personal disputes between them only without 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 233 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 young adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from his home district in large cities such as Hyderabad or Karachi where it would be difficult if not impossible for anyone to locate him.

8.On 4 October 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 11 April 2023 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions raised of his claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 10 August 2023 his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

9.In its decision[1] the Board accepted the Applicant’s claim but found no reliable evidence of any real intention of those 2 villagers or the family of his former girlfriend to seriously harm or kill him or to still have any adverse interests in him after all those years since he left the country, and that in any event these were private disputes between them only without 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.

10.On 21 August 2023 the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, and in his supporting affirmation of the same date he put forward the following grounds for his intended challenge:

(1)  That the Adjudicator did not consider his claim and just dismissed it directly without taking any time to think about his life;

(2)  That the Adjudicator unreasonably refused to allow him to submit his supporting documents without translations and also failed to give him time to arrange for their translations;

(3)  That the interpreter was impatient and unhelpful to him during his appeal hearing before the Board.

11.These are however just some bare and bald assertions of the Applicant without any relevant or necessary details or particulars or elaborations as to how they apply to his case or how the Board or the Adjudicator had erred in the decision, or in what way was the decision unfair or unreasonable or that the Adjudicator had acted procedurally unfair or irrational, or what documents that the Adjudicator had refused to allow him to submit without translations, or in what way was his interpreter impatient or unhelpful to him during his appeal hearing before the Board. As none of these assertions were properly elaborated or presented with any relevant particulars or specifics by the Applicant, I do not find any of them reasonably arguable for his intended challenge.

12.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.

13.In the Applicant’s case, the fact is that it has been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risks of harm in his claim if real are localized ones 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.

14.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.

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

16.In the premises, as I am for the reasons given 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 of no more issue for him to return to his home country, I accordingly dismiss his leave application.

Dated the 14^th day of October 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 14 October 2026 Mir Afzal 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 14 October 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 18881 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1499/21 (formerly RBCZ 94/21) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)