AMAN KHAN v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1064/2020

[2025] HKCFI 3236

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1064 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;

1.  Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion as follows:-

a.  the name of the putative respondent be amended to “Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office”;

b.  the Director of Immigration be named as the Putative Interested Party in place of the Applicant.

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By Form 86 filed on 2 June 2020 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of an adjudicator of the Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 22 May 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.  In the Form 86, the Applicant has incorrectly named himself as the interested party. Accordingly, I make an order to amend the Form 86 on the court’s own motion that the Director of Immigration be named the interested party.

3.  The Applicant requested for an oral hearing. The oral hearing of the Leave Application (“Hearing”) took place before me on 16 July 2025 and the Applicant attended in person.

Background

4.  The Applicant’s background, the procedural history, the basis of his claim and the arguments he advanced had been set out in details 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. In gist, the Applicant claims that he will be seriously harmed or killed by members of his former political party, the “Muttahida Moment” (also known as “Mahajar Qaumi Movement”) (“MQM”) if he is returned to Pakistan because he had left the MQM and provided information about MQM to the Pakistani police.

Discussion

5.  The applicable legal principles relating to this type of applications are well established. The judicial review is not a further avenue of appeal. Though in non-refoulement cases, the court will adopt a high standard of fairness to review the decision of the Board with anxious scrutiny 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.

6.  Leave application of this sort is intended to be a filtering process and elaborate reasons are not necessary (see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14, at §23). I shall give brief reasons for my decision below.

7.  In the Form 86 and the supporting affirmation, the Applicant did not condescend to any particulars as to his grounds in support of the Leave Application. This is unsatisfactory as it is trite that, an applicant, even if unrepresented, is required to properly identify the grounds of judicial review in the Form 86, and to fully and frankly disclose all material facts and potential legal answers, see: Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection (HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016) per Chow J (as he was then) at §142.

8.  At the Hearing, the Applicant said he had nothing further to add to the Leave Application.

9.  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 or that it had taken into account irrelevant matters.

10.  The Board’s Decision was comprehensive in its analysis of evidence. I do not see any basis to interfere with the Board’s factual finding that there was no evidence of any real risk of serious harm as the Board has rightly rejected the Applicant’s factual account on the basis that it was vague, implausible, speculative and unpersuasive given that there were a number of significant deficiencies in the Applicant’s evidence for which no reasonable explanation was given (§§57-63 of the Board’s Decision).

11.  The Board also considered relevant COI which indicates that the strength of the MQM has reduced significantly in recent years (§§55-56 of the Board’s Decision).

12.  Further, I also agree with the Board’s finding that the Applicant can be relocated to other parts of Pakistan (§§64-65 of the Board’s Decision) given that the Applicant is an able-bodied adult with 13 years of education and extensive working experience. It would not be unreasonable or unduly harsh for the Applicant to relocate to other areas of Pakistan.

13.  Hence, the Board’s Decision satisfies the enhanced Wednesbury test and is not Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational.

14.  In short, 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.

Conclusion

15.  In the premises, I make an order that the Form 86 be amended as described above and 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