MUNIR RAHEEL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1560/2021

[2026] HKCFI 2691

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1560 of 2021

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;

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.

Observations for the Applicants:

THE APPLICATION

1.  This is a re-hearing of the applicant’s appeal, pursuant to an Order of the Court by consent of the parties dated 20 October 2020.

2.  The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 3 November 2021 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”), dismissing the appeal against the Director’s Decision as described below.

3.  The applicant appeared before the Court on 4 May 2026.

4.  Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the proposed respondent is the Board and the Director of Immigration is the interested party.

The applicant                         

5.  The applicant is a national of Pakistan. He is an illegal immigrant. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by a man called Ali because he refused to join him to carry out illegal businesses.

6.  Details of his claim are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL001560_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

The Director’s Decision

7.  The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.  risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b.  risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);

c.  risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

d.  risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

8.  By way of Notice of Decision dated 9 February 2017 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

9.  The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 28 July 2021, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal. He was represented by a duty lawyer. The Director was represented by a senior government counsel. The Board recorded that he had elected not to make any submission and did not give any substantive answer when inquired during the hearing despite the Board having warned him that it might need to clarify some matters. [12]

10.  Having considered the evidence before it, the Board made the findings below.

(1)  There was no evidence to prove the alleged incidents or police was involved in those incidents. [57] & [60]

(2)  There was no evidence that Ali or his subordinates had ill-treated the applicant severely, meeting the level as required under BOR 3 risk. [59]

(3)  There was no evidence that state protection will not be available to him if he returns to Pakistan. [65] & [66]

(4)  Internal relocation is viable. [98]

11.  For the reasons above, the Board dismissed his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

12.  The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 11 November 2021 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

13.  The applicant did not raise any specific ground to challenge the Board’s Decision. He reminded the court that this is a re-hearing of his appeal.

DISCUSSION

14.  The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).

15.  The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, the applicant said that he had given his full story to the Board for its consideration and he had nothing to add.

16.  In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:

“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and 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 or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.”

17.  The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s findings.

18.  The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

19.  I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his 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