|
HCAL 1284/2021
[2026] HKCFI 2767
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1284 of 2021
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Mehmood Sajid |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board / |
Putative |
| |
Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office |
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;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:
The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. By a Form 86 filed on 13 September 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 19 August 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”). The Board’s Decision was made after oral hearings on 19 October 2020 and 28 April 2021 of the Applicant’s appeal/petition from the Director of Immigration (“DI”)’s first-tier decision dated 12 November 2018. A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1].
2. The Applicant is a Pakistani national. His claim for non-refoulment protection arose from an alleged dispute with an individual which was both political and family in nature. After oral hearings and an intense inquiry into the underlying facts, the Board recognized certain aspects of the Applicant’s case to be true, but it also found inconsistencies and improbable assertions in his evidence, which suggest that much of his claim was significantly exaggerated or invented. The Board found the centerpiece of his claim not proven and dismissed the claim.
3. The Board also, on an alternative basis that the Applicant’s assertions were true, considered his case under the different applicable grounds but found none of the grounds established. For example, the risk was found to be local in nature and not meeting the minimal level of severity in relation to protection under the Bill of Rights.
4. The Applicant has not set out any grounds of judicial review suggesting why the Board’s Decision was vitiated by public law error. During the oral hearing of this leave application, he did not add anything to the papers he filed in support of the application.
5. It is trite that judicial review is not a rehearing of the merits of a non-refoulement claim. In the absence of any valid argument that the Board had committed a legal error, been irrational in its reasoning or conducted its procedure unfairly, this Court has no basis to quash the Board’s Decision.
6. I have considered the Board’s Decision vigorously, but am unable to detect any reasonable argument that it should be quashed. This application for leave to apply for leave is therefore dismissed.
Dated the 14th day of May 2026
| |
(Wilinda YIU)
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 14/5/2026
Mehmood Sajid
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 14/5/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 14537/18/11/380/P2895
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 3878/18 (Formerly RBCZ 13677/15) (T6I116)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|