Case Details

Citation

MEHMOOD ARSHAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE, HCAL 1114/2021

Case Number

HCAL 1114/2021

Court

Court of First Instance

(CFI)

Decision Date

8 April 2026

Parties

Applicant(s):

Mehmood Arshad, consideration of the documents and the ’s oral submissions in open court, Notes for the : If leave has been granted, the or the ’s solicitors must, a) serve on the 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 proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5))

Respondent(s):

Director of Immigration Interested Party 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 the Applicant’s oral submissions in open court; Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law : 1. The Form 86 be amended to add the Director of Immigration as a 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 9 August 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office ( “the Board” ) dated 18 June 2021 ( “the Board’s Decision” ), which was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration ( “DI” ) dated 29 October 2018. A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink [1] . On my own motion, the DI is joined as a interested party to these proceedings. 2. The Applicant is a Pakistani national. His non-refoulement claim was based on a risk of harm from the people associated with Awami National Party ( “ANP” ). He claimed that he had not been associated with any political party himself, but was, Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Judges

Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law

MEHMOOD ARSHAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

[2026] HKCFI 1922 · HCAL 1114/2021

Court of First Instance8 April 2026

Judges:Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law

HCAL1114/2021 MEHMOOD ARSHAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1114/2021

[2026] HKCFI 1922

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1114 of 2021

BETWEEN
	Mehmood Arshad	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board /	Putative
	Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office	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;

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

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:

1. The Form 86 be amended to add 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 9 August 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 18 June 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), which was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 29 October 2018. A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1]. On my own motion, the DI is joined as a putative interested party to these proceedings.

2. The Applicant is a Pakistani national. His non-refoulement claim was based on a risk of harm from the people associated with Awami National Party (“ANP”). He claimed that he had not been associated with any political party himself, but was accused of a crime he did not commit and got in trouble with the ANP people. After an oral hearing with intense questioning and answering, the Board came to the view that the Applicant’s claim was not credible. The Board’s reasons included the Applicant’s lack of basic understanding about ANP and politics in Pakistan in general. In any event, the Board also assessed that, even on the basis of the Applicant’s assertions, the extent of harm the ANP people had attempted to inflict on the Applicant was not significant. Coupled with country information showing that ANP was not a major party in Pakistan or the Applicant’s province, his future risk of being ill-treated was found to be low. There was also a finding of reasonable internal relocation alternative. The petition/appeal was thus dismissed.

3. The Applicant has not set out any grounds of judicial review in the Form 86 or supporting affirmation. In the oral hearing before this Court, the Applicant said he has nothing to supplement.

4. I have considered the Board’s Decision vigorously, but am unable to detect any reasonable argument that the decision was tainted by 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.

5. This application for leave to apply for judicial review is therefore dismissed.

Dated the 8^th day of April 2026

(Klein Tse)
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 8 April 2026 Mehmood Arshad 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 8 April 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 14296/18/11/139/P2850 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 3418/18 (Formerly RBCZ 3001569/14) (T2 S102) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

[1] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL001114_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

Citation

Court

Procedural posture

Issues

Holdings

Legal principles

Disposition

Key citations

Appeal history

MEHMOOD ARSHAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CFI · 8 Apr 2026 · [2026] HKCFI 1922
This judgment
RE MEHMOOD ARSHAD
CA · 3 Jul 2026 · [2026] HKCA 1166
On appeal from

Case Details

Citation

MEHMOOD ARSHAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE, HCAL 1114/2021

Case Number

HCAL 1114/2021

Court

Court of First Instance

(CFI)

Decision Date

8 April 2026

Parties

Applicant(s):

Respondent(s):

Judges

Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law