UMAIR MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 94/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4294

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 94 of 2023

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 the Applicant being absent in open court;

1.  The Form 86 be amended by naming the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non refoulement Claims Petition Office as the only Putative Respondent and the Director of Immigration as the Putative Interested Party.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By a Form 86 filed on 20 January 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 5 January 2023 (the “Board”, the “Board’s Decision”).

2.  In the Form, the Applicant named the Board and the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) as the respondents and the Board as the interested party. I will amend the Form on my own motion to name only the Board as the Putative Respondent and the Director and the Putative Interested Party.

3.  In the Affirmation in support of the Leave Application (the “Affirmation”), the Applicant exhibited a copy of the Board’s Decision.

4.  The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the Leave Application. The hearing took place on 17 June 2026 (the “Hearing”) but the Applicant was absent. Notice of Hearing was issued to the Applicant in advance at the Applicant’s address stated in the Form and provided by the Immigration Department on 13 February 2026. The said Notices have not been returned as undelivered.

5.  On 9 June 2026, attempts were made to contact the Applicant by phone at the Applicant’s number provided by the Immigration Department but in vain. I take the view that sufficient notice had been given to the Applicant in respect of the Hearing. I will proceed with the Hearing in the absence of the Applicant.

Background

6.  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

7.  The Applicant has not identified any ground in support of the Leave Application, whether in the Form or the Affirmation.

8.  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.

9.  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.

10.  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. Although the Board found the Applicant to be a credible witness and accepted his factual accounts, the Board found that the Applicant has safe and reasonable relocation alternatives in Pakistan available to him outside his home area: see the Board’s Decision paras. 24-35. On the above basis, the Board found that the Applicant has failed to show that he would 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. 36-40. I do not consider there to be any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

11.  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

12.  For the reasons stated above, I will dismiss the Leave Application.

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