MOHAMMAD ZAHID QURESHI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)

Following:

The Application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By a Form 86 filed on 19 April 2022 (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 (the “Board”) dated 6 April 2022 (the “Board’s Decision”).  The Leave Applicant is supported by the Applicant’s Affirmation dated 19 April 2022 (the “Affirmation”), which enclosed the Board’s Decision as an exhibit.

2.  The Applicant requested a hearing of the Leave Application, which took place on 19 January 2026 (the “Hearing”).

3.  At the Hearing, the Applicant applied to adjourn the Hearing, claiming that he is suffering from a heart condition and cannot make proper submissions.  The Applicant provided to me an Appointment Slip of the Kwong Wah Hospital Cardiac Clinic stating that he would have an appointment at the Clinic on 4 May 2026 and that he is required to take a blood test before the appointment.  The Appointment Slip does not show what kind of heart condition the Applicant has or suggests that his health condition does not allow him to make submissions at the Hearing.  From my observation of the Applicant at the Hearing, he does not appear to be suffering from any serious health condition which would prevent him from making submissions.  I therefore declined the Applicant’s application for adjournment.

Background

4.  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

5.  The Applicant has not identified any ground for the Leave Application whether in the Form or the Affirmation.  

6.  When being asked if he intends to make any oral submission on the Leave Application, the Applicant said that he has nothing to add.

7.  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 scrutinizing 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.  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. 

8.  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.

9.  I have reviewed the Board’s Decision in detail.  In the comprehensive Decision, the Board has fully considered the Applicant’s grounds for challenging the Director’s decision in refusing his claim for non-refoulment protection.  Having considered the Applicant’s evidence thoroughly, the Board reached the conclusion that the Applicant does not face any real or substantial risk of being subjected to serious or significant harm for the reasons claimed by him if he returns to Pakistan: see the Board’s Decision paras. 29‑151.  I do not consider there to be any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

10.  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 documents and the grounds raised by the Applicant in reaching the present decision.

Conclusion

11.  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