|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Masih Waseem |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Putative
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) Sabrina Ho:
The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. By a Form 86 filed on 18 October 2021 (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 October 2021 (the “Board’s Decision”). The Leave Applicant is supported by the Applicant’s Affidavit dated 18 October 2021 (the “Affidavit”).
2. The Applicant requested an oral hearing of the Leave Application, which took place on 19 January 2026 (“the Hearing”).
Background
3. 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 them here. The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference.
Discussion
4. 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 of Immigration (“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.
5. In the Affidavit, the Applicant attached the Board’s Decision and asked the Court to allow him to stay in Hong Kong, stating that his life is not safe in his country due to his relationship problem. Apart from that, the Applicant did not put forward other ground in support of the Leave Application.
6. At the Hearing, the Applicant provided to this Court a purported letter dated 9 December 2025 from an organization in the name of World Renew (the “Letter”). In the Letter, it was stated that the Applicant has submitted an application for private sponsorship of refugee to Canada. World Renew asked the Applicant to update certain documents before his application can proceed. The Applicant informed this Court that he has provided this document to the Immigration Department.
7. 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. I have reviewed the Board’s Decision in detail. The Board has fully considered the Applicant’s grounds for challenging the Director’s decision in refusing his claim for non-refoulment protection. The Board has considered, amongst other things, the alleged harm from SSP, the group under SSP and its leader Mr. K, other members of SSP, the Muslims in Pakistan and/or the Pakistan authorities, before reaching the conclusion that the Applicant has failed to show any real risk of Proscribed Harm if he is refouled to Pakistan[2]: see the Board’s Decision paras. 36-90. I do not consider there to be any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.
8. As for the Letter, it does not assist the Applicant’s Leave Application. At the most, the Letter shows that the Applicant has made an application for private sponsorship of refugee to Canada. The application has yet to be processed and it is unclear what the outcome would be. More importantly, the Letter is irrelevant to this Court’s consideration of the Leave Application as it does not show in any way that the Board has committed any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in reaching the Board’s Decision.
9. 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
10. For the reasons stated above, I make an order that the Leave Application be dismissed.
Dated the 10th day of February 2026
| |
(Annson Cheung)
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 10/02/2026
Masih Waseem
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 10/02/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 13076/18/8/346/P2553
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 2540/18 (formerly RBCZ 2001918/14)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1