IQBAL ZAFAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)

Following:

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By a Form 86 filed on 10 May 2022 (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 28 April 2022 (the “Board’s Decision”).  The Leave Applicant is supported by the Applicant’s Affirmation dated 10 May 2022 (the “Affirmation”), which enclosed the Board’s Decision as an exhibit.

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 the same 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 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.  The Applicant has not identified in the Form or the Affirmation any ground in support of the Leave Application.

6.  At the Hearing, the Applicant said that 1.5 years ago, his father and his brother were subject to target killing in his hometown in Pakistan.  The Applicant claimed that after the killer committed the killing, the killer threatened him that if he returns to Pakistan, he will be subject to the same treatment.   

7.  Having considered all the 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.

8.  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 the Applicant’s evidence comprehensively before it concludes that it is not satisfied that the Applicant would face any real risk of serious harm at the hands of Haji Mehroof and his men, the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz), the police or any other person should he return to Pakistan.  On that basis, the Board finds that there is no real risk that the Applicant would face any of the proscribed forms of harm should he return to Pakistan: see the Board’s Decision paras. 95-111.  I do not consider there to be any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

9.  As for the alleged target killing which the Applicant raised at the Hearing, this was only a bare assertion on the Applicant’s part.  The assertion was not included in the Applicant’s Affirmation and there is no other evidence in support of it.  I do not consider the belated assertion to have any impact on the Board’s Decision or the Leave Application. 

10.  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

11.  For the reasons stated above, I will dismiss the Leave 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