KHALIL UR REHMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 468/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4289

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 468 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 oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

1.  Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion as follows:-

a.  The Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the Putative Respondent; and

b.  The Director of Immigration be named as the Putative Interested Party.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By Form 86 filed on 27 March 2023 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of an adjudicator of the Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 16 March 2023 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.  To ensure the proper naming of the parties, I make an order to amend the Form 86 accordingly on the court’s own motion.

3.  An oral hearing was requested by the Applicant. It took place before me on 20 July 2026 (the “Hearing”) and the Applicant attended in person.

Background

4.  The relevant details of the Applicant’s claim had been set out in the Board’s Decision. The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference. In short, the Applicant is from Pakistan. He claimed that his family was involved in a land dispute with associates of the Pakistan Muslim League – N (the “Adversaries”), a political party. It is alleged that the PML-N has forcibly occupied his family home (the “Property”) which was legally registered under the name of the Applicant’s wife (the “Wife”).

Discussion

5.  The leave application is intended to be a filtering process and elaborate reasons are not necessary, see: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at §23. Hence, I shall set out the brief reasons for my decision below.

6.  The relevant general principles are well established. Judicial review does not operate as a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement cases, the Court applies a high standard of fairness to review the decision of the Board with anxious scrutiny due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, the Court must not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information (“COI”) materials, risk of harm, availability of 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 §14.

7.  An applicant, even if unrepresented, is required to properly identify the grounds of judicial review in the Form 86, and to fully and frankly disclose all material facts and potential legal answers, see: Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection HCAL 21/2015 (unreported, 22 December 2016) per Chow J (as he was then) at §142. Where a Form 86 contains only general assertions without particulars as to underlying facts or matters upon which the Board’s Decision is said to be erroneous, such assertions are not effective grounds to support a judicial review, see: Re Haider Khalil [2021] HKCA 223 at §16.

8.  Apart from indicating his disagreement with the Board’s Decision, the Applicant complained in his supporting affirmation that he did not have a fair hearing before the Board due to language issues:-

(1)  Documents submitted by the Applicant in his native language (the “Documents”) were rejected by the Board as the Board could not understand the Documents. The Board also refused to give the Applicant time to arrange for translation of the Documents into English.

(2)  The Applicant did not receive sufficient assistance from the interpreter, who was impatient with him.

9.  In my judgment, the Applicant’s complaint about difficulties with interpretation/translation are devoid of merits:-

(1)  These grounds appear to be generic grounds based on a template. In any event, they are vague and wholly unparticularised. For example, there is no attempt to identify what the Documents were and how they relate to the Applicant’s case. The Applicant also failed to point out in what manner was the interpretation inadequate and how it gave rise to unfairness to the Applicant.

(2)  As recorded in the Board’s Decision (§13), the Applicant had the assistance of an interpreter before the Board. The procedure was explained to him and he was reminded of the basis of his claim, he was also given the opportunity to supplement his case or make further observations but the Applicant had nothing to add. There is no indication of (i) any attempt by the Applicant to submit the Documents; or (ii) any complaint raised by the Applicant concerning difficulty in understanding the proceedings.

(3)  From the handwritten Notice of Appeal/Petition submitted by the Applicant to the Board, it is apparent that the Applicant is reasonably proficient in English, or was able to obtain assistance from individuals who are able to communicate in English.

10.  At the Hearing, the Applicant merely repeated his claim. Contrary to his own grounds of review, he also claimed that he had submitted all the relevant documents in support of his claim.

11.  I now turn to the complaint about the decision of the Board. Having considered the Board’s Decision, I do not find any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality which can give rise to a reasonably arguable case for review. There is nothing to indicate that the Board had failed to take into account any relevant matters or that it had taken into account irrelevant matters.

12.  The Board has given adequate reasons for its decision and has conducted a thorough analysis of the available evidence. Amongst others, the Board was plainly correct in finding that there was an absence of real risk of serious harm to the Applicant as his evidence was incredible (§§56-62). In any event:-

(1)  The Applicant has been in regular contact with the Wife. It is not disputed that the Wife (who was the legal owner of the property in question) and his children were not subject to any harm at all material times (§§43-46).

(2)  Even on the Applicant’s own evidence, since 2004 the Adversaries had numerous opportunities to kill him and his family members but they did not do so (§§47-48, 63).

13.  Further, the Applicant’s contention that he will not have protection in Pakistan is a bare assertion not supported by credible evidence. Having considered the relevant COI, the Board was entitled to form the view that adequate state protection is available in Pakistan notwithstanding the corruption and inefficiencies in the police and law enforcement. Hence, there is no basis to find that the Pakistan state had acquiesced the perpetration of violence. Rather, there is an ongoing effort to bring about improvement (§66(e)).

14.  In light of the above findings, the Applicant’s claim must fail. It is hence unnecessary to consider the Board’s finding on internal relocation (§§67-70).

15.  In such circumstances, the Board’s Decision satisfies the enhanced Wednesbury test and cannot be said to be irrational.

16.  I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success. Leave is therefore refused.

Conclusion

17.  In the premises, I make an order that the Form 86 be amended as described above and the Leave Application be dismissed.

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