YASEEN MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 939/2021

[2026] HKCFI 1418

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 939 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 oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

1.  The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By a “Notice of application for leave to apply for judicial review” in the prescribed Form 86 filed on 5 July 2021, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 18 June 2021 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 14 June 2019 (“Director’s Decision”) rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds[1]. The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlink: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL000939_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.  In his Form 86, the applicant named the Board as the interested party in addition to it having been named as the proposed respondent. Since the Director should have been the proper interested party, the Form 86 shall be amended accordingly on the court’s own motion.

3.  The basis of the applicant’s claim was that, if refouled to Pakistan, he would be harmed or killed by the members of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (“PTI”), the ruling party of Pakistan, due to the applicant’s active campaigning for the rival party, the Pakistan Muslim League (“PML”). The Board’s reasoning and findings were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision and it is not necessary for me to repeat them. Unless otherwise specified, I shall also adopt the Board’s abbreviations and descriptions stated in the Board’s Decision.

4.  At the applicant’s request for a hearing of the Leave Application, this court scheduled a hearing on 26 February 2026. The applicant attended the hearing in person. After having heard from him, this court informed him that the decision would be reserved, and be sent to his updated address.

Discussion

5.  The Leave Application operates as a ‘filtering’ process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision.[2]  It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the Board’s Decision and the applicant’s materials adduced.

6.  In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly[3], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit. The Form 86 and the supporting affirmation provided no such grounds.    

7.  At the hearing, the applicant wanted to submit documents to the court. After having sighted the documents, I returned them to the applicant as they were not related or relevant to the Leave Application. One of the documents was an affidavit of an eyewitness to an incident on 14 December 2018 in which the applicant was assaulted. The other document was a medical report regarding the applicant’s injuries sustained from that assault incident. According to the applicant’s evidence as fully set out in the Director’s Decision, the applicant was allegedly assaulted by the PTI members in two incidents in January and February 2019. There was no report of an assault in December 2018. Hence, the documents were not relevant. I asked if he wished to submit any grounds to support the Leave Application especially that he had provided no written grounds. The applicant said that he had nothing to say.   

8.  As the Courts have repeatedly stated, a finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the Board, which a court in a judicial review will not interfere with unless such finding involved an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.[4]  In the present case, the Board found the applicant’s account implausible, incredible and impossible, and rejected his claims. The Board found that the applicant would not face any risk of harm if refouled. It further found that state protection and internal relocation were reasonably viable. These are findings of fact, which the court in a judicial review will not interfere with, subject to there being any public law errors.

9.  Bearing in mind the enhanced standard that should be adopted in scrutinizing the Board’s Decision, this court is satisfied that the Board correctly applied the law relating to all the grounds and observed a high standard of fairness. The applicant provided no grounds at all, whether written or oral, to support the Leave Application. The applicant has not shown any errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. The applicant’s intended challenge to the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success such that would enable this court to grant leave[5].

Orders

10.  The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.

11.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be 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