AHMAD GULZAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1115/2021

[2026] HKCFI 2511

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1115 of 2021

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 the Applicant’s submissions in open court;

1.  The Form 86 be amended to name the Director of Immigration as a putative interested party; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  By a Form 86 filed on 9 August 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 26 July 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”). The Board’s Decision was made after an oral hearing on 18 June 2021 of the Applicant’s appeal/petition from the Director of Immigration (“DI”)’s first-tier decision dated 5 November 2018. A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1]. On my own motion, I amend the Form 86 as per paragraph 1 of the above order.

2.  The Applicant is a Pakistani national. His claim for non-refoulment protection arose from a land dispute between his father and himself on one side and his uncle on the other side, for which physical violence was allegedly used. The Board considered the Applicant’s risk not falling within the meaning of torture (including its extended meaning by State acquiescence), that there was nothing to show a risk of violation of the rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, and that the claim did not fall within a Refugees Convention ground for persecution risk to become applicable. Reasonable internal relocation alternative was also found.    

3.  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 mentioned that he was troubled by his family members’ passing at the time of the Board’s hearing and thus he could not answer any question effectively. I also noted from paragraph 36 of the Board’s Decision that the Applicant at that time said he was on medication and thus he “was unable to add anything to his case”.

4.  However, the Applicant did not seek any adjournment or produce any medical certificate at the time of the hearing. After all, the Board did not make finding of credibility against the Applicant but only rested its decision on the lack of evidence substantiating a real risk under any applicable ground even accepting his factual assertions to be true. I find no reasonable argument that the Board conducted the appeal/petition proceedings unfairly.

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 and conducted its procedure unfairly, this Court cannot intervene.     

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.

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