AHMAD MUSHTAQ v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

1.   The Form 86 be amended to name the Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office as the putative respondent, its decision dated 2 July 2021 as the decision sought to be reviewed and 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 29 July 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of a decision of the Petition Team (Security Bureau) Torture Claim Department dated 2 July 2021.  From a reading of the decision attached to the supporting affirmation, the decision maker should better be called the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”), and the relevant decision on 2 July 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”) was made after a hearing of the appeal/petition from the Director of Immigration (“DI”)’s first-tier decision dated 21 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 Board’s Decision touched on the Applicant’s rights on all applicable grounds except risk of torture under the Immigration Ordinance (implementing Convention Against Torture); the Applicant’s torture risk had been assessed in a previous process in 2013.

3.  The Applicant is a Pakistani national.  His claim for non-refoulment protection arose from an alleged land dispute with his uncle, who was allegedly associated with a member of the Provincial Legislative Assembly.  He claimed that the uncle and his people had attacked him several times and threatened to kill him.  After an oral hearing, in which the Applicant was legally represented, the Board considered the Applicant not making out a case for non‑refoulement protection.  It was decided that the Applicant’s claim had elements of exaggeration, and his movement record was inconsistent with a genuine fear of his own safety.  The Board also found reasonable internal relocation alternative.   

4.  The Applicant has apparently set out some grounds of judicial review in the Form 86 and a supplementary letter he produced during the oral hearing before this Court.  However, those grounds are mere repetition of the substance of his non-refoulement claim but not complaints of illegality, irrationality or procedural fairness against the Board’s Decision.     

5.  I have considered the Board’s Decision vigorously, but am unable to detect any reasonable argument that it was tainted by any public law errors. In my view, the Board has conducted an anxious scrutiny of the facts of the case and assessed intensely its factual issues.  This application for leave to apply for judicial review 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