Case Document

100%

HCAL 911/2023

[2026] HKCFI 5946

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 911 OF 2023

BETWEEN

	Junaid Khan	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;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan:

Leave to apply for judicial review be refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.The Applicant is a 29-year-old national of Pakistan who entered Hong Kong illegally on 24 September 2020 and was arrested by police on 25 September 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 his paternal uncle over their land dispute in his home village. He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2.The Applicant was born and raised in Village Adal Zai, Tehsil Hazro, District Attock, Punjab, Pakistan. After leaving school he farmed on his father’s farmland in his home village which had also been let out to his paternal uncle for farming while his father worked in Oman.

3.After his father passed away in 2014, the Applicant requested his uncle to return his father’s farmland to his family so that he could grow and cultivate his own crops to make his living, but his request was refused by his uncle, and after several failed attempts to settle their dispute through their relatives and third parties, the Applicant one day became frustrated and drove a tractor onto the farmland, which led to a fight between him and his uncle until they were restrained by other villagers.

4.Thereafter his uncle started to make threats against the Applicant, and on several occasions he even tried to attack him with a big knife but was restrained by other villagers. As a result the Applicant became fearful for his life and fled to Rawalpindi to take shelter in a friend’s place, and on 6 July 2020 he departed Pakistan 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 22 April 2021 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”).

5.By a Notice of Decision dated 3 August 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”).

6.In his decision the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from his paternal uncle upon his return to Pakistan as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from him, that there is no evidence of any real intention of his uncle to seriously harm or kill him other than just angry words and empty threats, that in any event it was a private land dispute between just the 2 of them and within their family 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”) show that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in Pakistan with a large population of 238 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 Karachi or Hyderabad where it would be difficult if not impossible for his uncle to locate him.

7.On 9 August 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 5 May 2023 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions raised of his claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 2 June 2023 his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

8.In its decision[1] the Board similarly found no reliable evidence of any real intention of his uncle to seriously harm or kill the Applicant over their land dispute in his home village other than just angry words and empty threats, and that in any event it was a private dispute between the 2 of them within their family 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.

9.On 9 June 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 directly dismissed it without taking 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 translation;

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

10.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 refused to allow the Applicant to submit without translation, or in what way was the interpreter impatient and unhelpful to the Applicant during his appeal hearing before the Board. As such, and as none of these assertions were properly elaborated or presented with any relevant particulars or specifics by the Applicant, nor was he able to do so at the hearing of his application, I do not find any of them reasonably arguable for his intended challenge.

11.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.

12.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 risk of harm in his claim if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for him to relocate to other part 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.

13.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.

14.In the premises, as I am for the given reasons not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, I therefore refuse to grant leave and accordingly dismiss his application.

Dated the 27^th day of October 2026

(Chung Lai Fan, Christine)
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 the Applicant’s 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 27 October 2026 Junaid Khan 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 27 October 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 18488 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 353/21 (formerly RBCZ 10808/20) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)