ZAHEER AHMED 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 6 June 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 16 May 2022 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.  The Leave Application is supported by an Affirmation of the Applicant dated 6 June 2022 (“Affirmation”), exhibiting a copy of the Board’s Decision.

3.  The Applicant requested an oral hearing of the Leave Application, which took place on 20 January 2026 (“the Hearing”).

Background

4.  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

5.  In the Form, the Applicant complained that the Board’s Decision was unfair, without providing any particulars. In the Affirmation, the Applicant has not identified any ground in support of the Leave Application.

6.  At the Hearing, the Applicant submitted to the Court 2 sets of documents.  The first set of documents show some photos of people allegedly belonging to a party, Kashmir, who wished to seek self-sovereignty.  The Applicant said that he was a member of that party.  The Applicant said that some of the photos showed his family members who were being tortured.  The second set of documents comprises certain documents by the United Kingdom Home Office and an identification card.  The Applicant said that he wanted to show the Court that he was in the UK for a period of time.  The Applicant orally supplemented that his father and brother were killed and his family is still under torture in Pakistan.

7.  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 scrutinising 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.

8.  Having considered all the relevant 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.

9.  I have reviewed the Board’s Decision in detail.  The Board had fully considered the Applicant’s evidence and his grounds for challenging the Director’s decision in refusing his claim for non-refoulment protection.  While the Board was prepared to accept that the Applicant was an activist with the United Kashmir People’s National Party (i.e. Kashmir) prior to his departure for the United Kingdom in 2004, it was not satisfied that the Applicant was at real risk of harm of any kind during the period after he returned to Pakistan in 2005 up to his departure to Hong Kong in 2009.  On that basis, the Board rejected the Applicant’s appeal and found that the Applicant is not entitled to non-refoulment protection in Hong Kong: see the Board’s Decision para. 58-91.  I do not consider there to be any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.

10.  As for the documents which the Applicant showed to the Court at the Hearing, they concern the Applicant’s involvement in the Kashmir party and his stay in the UK, these matters have already been considered by the Board when it reached the Decision, see above.

11.  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

12.  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