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

HCAL 1138/2020

[2025] HKCFI 3847

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1138 of 2020

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

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

Following;

	consideration of documents only;          or
	consideration of documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By Form 86 filed on 9 June 2020 (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 25 May 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.  The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the application. The hearing took place on 21 July 2025 and the Applicant attended in person. The Applicant submitted two additional documents and claimed that he will not be safe if he returns to Pakistan. I shall deal with the documents hereinbelow.

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 applicable legal principles relating to application of this sort are well established. The role of the Court 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 §14)

5.  In the Form, the Applicant did not provide any grounds in support of the Leave Application. In the supporting Affirmation, the Applicant simply stated that he did not agree with the Board’s Decision and exhibited a copy of the said decision.

6.  At the hearing on 21 July 2025, the Applicant submitted two documents. The first one is a “first information report” (“FIR”) issued by the police in District Rawalpindi in Pakistan (“FIR1”). According to the Applicant, FIR1 shows that there was a case filed against the Applicant and his brother relating to the incident mentioned in §8 of the Board’s Decision. FIR1 seems to be the same document the Applicant had submitted before the Board (§47 of the Board’s Decision). As correctly pointed out by the Board, FIR1 actually revealed discrepancies with the Applicant’s claims (§47 of the Board’s Decision). I have considered FIR1 and I am not certain that one of the accused mentioned on the document (Muhammad Zafaran) was in fact the Applicant given the difference in the names. Assuming that he was indeed the Applicant, the document only demonstrated that the Applicant was involved in the dispute in 2005 in which he was charged. I do not see how FIR1 assists the Applicant’s claims that he will be subject to risk of torture or other risks. There is also nothing to suggest that the Board had failed to take into account this document.

7.  The second document is another FIR issued by the police in District Rawalpindi in Pakistan (“FIR2”). According to the Applicant, FIR2 shows that there was a case filed against the Applicant relating to the incident mentioned in §10 of the Board’s Decision. FIR2 is apparently the same document the Applicant had submitted before the Board (§47 of the Board’s Decision). As correctly pointed out by the Board, FIR2 does not actually support what the Applicant said in the interview and there was inconsistencies amongst the Applicant’s various versions of events (§47 of the Board’s Decision). I have considered FIR2 and again, I am not certain that one of the accused mentioned on the document (Muhammad Zafaran) was in fact the Applicant given the difference in the names. Assuming that he was indeed the Applicant, the document only demonstrated that there the Applicant was involved in the incident in 2010 in which he was charged. I do not see how FIR2 assists the Applicant’s claims that he will be subject to risk of torture or other risks. There is also nothing to suggest that the Board had failed to take into account this document.

8.  I have considered the Board’s Decision in detail. I do not find any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality. Neither has the Applicant been able to demonstrate any of the same. There is nothing to indicate that the Board had failed to take into account any relevant matters, including the two FIRs. The Board’s Decision was comprehensive with adequate reasons provided. In particular, the Board had thoroughly considered the Applicant’s claims and his evidence, and was entitled to reject his claims (§§45-60 of the Board’s Decision). The Board’s Decision satisfies the enhanced Wednesbury test and is not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational. I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success. Accordingly, I refuse to grant leave for judicial review.

9.  Leave application of this sort is meant to be a filtering process and I am not expected to give elaborated reasons for my decision (see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14, at §23). Suffice for me to state that in reaching the decision, I have considered all the relevant documents before me.

Conclusion

10.  In the light of the reasons provided above, I make an order that the Leave Application 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