AHMED HURARA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 458/2023

[2026] HKCFI 4287

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 458 of 2023

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 that the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office be named as the Putative Respondent; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By Form 86 filed on 23 March 2023 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant sought 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 8 March 2023 (the “Board’s Decision”).

2.  To ensure that the Board is properly named, I make an order to amend the Form 86 accordingly on the court’s own motion.

3.  An oral hearing was requested by the Applicant. It took place before me on 20 July 2026 (the “Hearing”) and the Applicant attended in person.

Background

4.  The Applicant’s background, the basis and history of his claim and the arguments he advanced had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and it is unnecessary for me to repeat the same here. The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference. In short, the Applicant claims that he will be killed if he returns to Pakistan because the Applicant’s family has an ongoing dispute with the Applicant’s paternal uncle (the “Uncle”) who is said to be a gangster with political connections.

Discussion

5.  The leave application is intended to be a filtering process and elaborate reasons are not necessary, see: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at §23. Hence, I shall set out below the brief reasons for my decision.

6.  It is trite that determination of the merits of a non-refoulement claim is essentially within the remit of the Director and the Board, who are the primary decision-makers in the evaluation of the evidence based on the materials available to them. A court will not usurp their primary decision-making role in a judicial review, which is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by the Board in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh in the absence of any legal error. A finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the Board, which this court will not interfere with unless such finding involved an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality: see Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524.

7.  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 (unreported, 22 December 2016) per Chow J (as he was then) at §142. Where a Form 86 contains only general assertions without particulars as to underlying facts or matters upon which the Board’s Decision is said to be erroneous, such assertions are not effective grounds to support a judicial review, see: Re Haider Khalil [2021] HKCA 223 at §16.

8.  In his affirmation in support, the Applicant advanced the following grounds of review:-

(1)  He complained about receiving insufficient language assistance. He claimed that he tried to submit documents in his native language (the “Alleged Documents”) but the request was rejected by the Board who also refused to give the Applicant time to arrange for translation of documents. He also complained that the interpreter at the hearing before the Board was unhelpful and impatient.

(2)  He repeated his factual case about his family’s dispute with the Uncle and the Uncle’s alleged political influence and expressed disagreement with the Board’s Decision.

9.  I am not satisfied that the Applicant’s complaint about language difficulties has any merits:-

(1)  It is well-established that the high standard of fairness required by law would not entail an interpretation service being made available at any time the applicant desires, see: Re Gurung Sagar [2019] HKCA 658 at §12.

(2)  The complaint is vague and unparticularised. The Applicant has failed to identify with precision what the Alleged Documents were and how they would assist his case. Similarly, he has failed to elaborate how the quality of interpretation had unfairly prejudiced his case.

(3)  Given that the documents for the Leave Application are written in English, I am of the view that the Applicant has some understanding of English or would be able to obtain the assistance for translation if so needed.

(4)  Despite claiming that he had insufficient time to arrange for translation of the Alleged Documents, to date, no such translation has been produced to the court.

(5)  Looking at the Board’s Decision, there is no indication that the Applicant has made any complaint at the time about inability to submit documents or language issues. In fact, it was expressly recorded in the Board’s Decision that the Applicant was asked about whether he had anything to supplement his evidence and he answered in the negative (§8).

10.  Similarly, the Applicant has failed to point with specificity how the Board has erred in arriving at its decision. In any event, having examined the Board’s Decision, I do not find any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality which can give rise to a reasonably arguable case for review. 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.

11.  I am satisfied that the Board has given adequate reasons for its decision and has conducted a meticulous analysis of the evidence put before it. Amongst others, the Board was plainly correct in finding that there was no evidence of any real risk of serious harm, as it has found the Applicant’s case to be incredible having regard to the contradictions and inconsistencies in his evidence (§15), for example the Applicant was inconsistent as to how the dispute with the Uncle came about. At one point he claimed that it was a land dispute but at another he claimed that the Uncle tried to demand money from his family without any reason. His account of the timing of such disputes is also inconsistent (§17). The Applicant’s explanation for the inconsistencies was unsatisfactory (§16).

12.  The Applicant’s contention that he will not have protection in Pakistan is a bare assertion not supported by credible evidence. Having considered the relevant Country of Origin information, the Board was entitled to form the view that adequate state protection is available in Pakistan notwithstanding the existence of certain shortcomings in the legal system. Taken at its highest, the dispute with the Uncle is only a private dispute. The Board has rightly rejected the Applicant’s case that the Uncle had any influence over government authorities in Pakistan (§§19-28, 41-42).

13.  In such circumstances, the Board’s Decision satisfies the enhanced Wednesbury test and cannot be said to be 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