LAAL HUSSAIN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 748/2023

[2026] HKCFI 2111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 748 OF 2023

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 oral submissions by the Applicant in open court / the Applicant being absent in open court;

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  The Applicant is a 37-year-old national of Pakistan who entered Hong Kong illegally on 19 May 2021 and was arrested by police on 24 May 2021. After he was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, he raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if he returned to Pakistan he would be harmed or killed by his paternal uncle over their land dispute in their home village. He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2.  The Applicant was born and raised in Village Meowal Kala, Tehsil Gujrat & District Gujrat, Punjab, Pakistan. After leaving school he worked as a taxi driver and a farmer farming on his father’s farmland in his home village.

3.  Both his father and uncle were also farmers who had inherited their shares of his grandfather’s farmlands in the home village, and in 2015 upon retirement his father then transferred his land to the Applicant.

4.  In 2018 his uncle proposed to build a path on the Applicant’s land so as to gain access to his own home, and for which the Applicant demanded a sum of money as compensation but which was not agreeable to his uncle, and so their dispute had dragged on that his uncle began to lose patience and started to make threats against the Applicant.

5.  After being beaten by men sent by his uncle on one occasion in August 2019 when he suffered cuts and injuries to his body which required medical treatments, the Applicant became fearful for his life and fled to Lahore, and on 21 October 2019 he departed Pakistan for China, and from there he later sneaked into Hong Kong, and upon his arrest by the police he then raised his non-refoulement claim for protection, for which he completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 11 November 2021 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation.

6.  By a Notice of Decision dated 8 April 2022 the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“Torture Risk”), risk of his absolute or non-derogable rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 (“HKBOR”) being violated including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 Risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of HKBOR (“BOR 3 Risk”), and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (“Persecution Risk”).

7.  In his decision the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and assessed the level of risk of harm from his uncle upon his return to Pakistan as low due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from his uncle, that there is no evidence of any real intention of his uncle to seriously harm or kill him other than to press him to allow him to build a path over his farmland, that in any event it was a private land dispute between just the 2 of them and within their family only without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant if resorted to, and that reliable and objective Country of Origin Information (“COI”) show that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in Pakistan with a large population of 238 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 796,000 square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able‑bodied adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from his home district in large cities such as Karachi or Hyderabad where it would be difficult if not impossible for his uncle to locate him.

8.  On 19 April 2022 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which he attended an oral hearing on 28 November 2022 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions raised of his claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 11 May 2023 his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

9.  In its decision[1] the Board found no reliable evidence of any real intention of the Applicant’s uncle to seriously harm or kill him other than to press him to agree to his demand to build a path over his farmland, and that in any event it was a private land dispute between him and his uncle only within their family without any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon his return to Pakistan as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for him to move safely to other parts of the country away from his home district without any risk of being located by his uncle that his claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

10.  On 17 May 2023 the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in his Form or his supporting affirmation of the same date in which he just stated that he is not satisfied with the decision but without putting forth any proper ground for his intended challenge. As such, and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in his process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis for his intended challenge of the Board’s decision.

11.  As has been repeatedly emphasized by the Court of Appeal, judicial review does not operate as a rehearing of a non-refoulement claim when the proper occasion for the Applicant to present and articulate his claim is in the screening process and interview before the Immigration Department and in the process before the Board where the evaluation of the risk of harm is primarily a matter for the Director and the Board as they are entitled to make such evaluation based on the evidence available to them that the court will not usurp their role as primary decision makers in the absence of any legal error or procedural unfairness or irrationality in their decisions being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, as judicial review is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by them in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh: Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.

12.  In the Applicant’s case, the fact is that it has been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risk of harm in his claim if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for him to relocate to other part of Pakistan, there is simply no justification to afford him with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.

13.  In the premises, and having considered the decisions of both the Director and the Board with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in either of them, nor any failure on their part to apply high standards of fairness in their consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s claim.

14.  It is also of note that the Applicant has recently on 10 March 2026 filed an affirmation requesting to withdraw his application as he now wants to return to Pakistan but without any explanation as to what has happened to his claimed risk in his home country.

15.  As I am for the given reasons not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, I therefore refuse to grant leave and accordingly dismiss his 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