|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Rashid Zaman |
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:
Order by Deputy High Court Judge Levy:
The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. By a “Notice of application for leave to apply for judicial review” in the prescribed Form 86 filed on 28 December 2021, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 21 October 2021 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 18 November 2019 (“Director’s Decision”) rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds[1] except the risk torture ground which had been previously dismissed by the Director 26 November 2012 and the appeal before the Board also failed on 16 January 2013. The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlink: -
https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL001756_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf
2. The basis of the applicant’s claim was that, if refouled to Pakistan, he would be harmed or killed by Haz, the ex-president of Sepa-eSahaba (“SSP”) a terrorist Sunni Muslim group after a business dispute with Haz. The Board’s reasoning and findings were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision and it is not necessary for me to repeat them. Unless otherwise specified, I shall adopt the Board’s abbreviations and descriptions stated in the Board’s Decision.
3. At the applicant’s request for a hearing of the Leave Application, this court scheduled a hearing on 17 March 2026. The applicant attended the hearing in person. After having heard from him, this court informed him that the decision would be reserved, and be sent to his updated address.
Discussion
4. The Leave Application operates as a ‘filtering’ process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision.[2] It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the Board’s Decision and the applicant’s materials adduced.
5. In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly[3], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit. The Form 86 and the supporting contained no such grounds at all.
6. At the hearing, this court asked the applicant whether he had any grounds he wished to submit in support of the Leave Application. The applicant stated that relocation was out of question for him as he would raise the Shia flag wherever he would be living. The Sunni would target at him. After the court told him that what he said did not constitute a valid ground of review, and asked him if he wanted to advance any grounds since he had provided no written grounds at all. The applicant said that he had nothing to say or to add.
7. As the Courts have repeatedly stated, a finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the Board, which a court in a judicial review will not interfere with unless such finding involved an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.[4] In the present case, the Board found that the applicant’s evidence not credible and did not accept the basis for his claimed dispute with the SSP and that they would seek to locate and seriously harm or kill him. It therefore found that the applicant would not be subjected to risk of harm if refouled. These are findings of fact, which the court in a judicial review will not interfere with, subject to there being any public law errors.
8. Bearing in mind the enhanced standard that should be adopted in scrutinizing the Board’s Decision, this court is satisfied that the Board correctly applied the law relating to all the grounds and observed a high standard of fairness. At the hearing, the applicant stated that internal relocation was not possible for him due to his hoisting of s Shia flag as well as the wearing of s Shia bracelet, which would made him a target of attack by the Sunni Muslims. In the Board’s Decision at [47], the applicant had raised with the Board the problem of internal relocation for the similar reason though he had not mentioned the hoisting of a flag. In the present case, the Board rejected the applicant’s case in its entirety, and concluded that the applicant would not be subjected to risk of harm if refouled. Before the rejection of the applicant’s case, the Board asked the applicant lots of questions that was pertinent to his claims of fear from SSP. For example, at [50] of the Board’s Decision, the Board had mentioned that the applicant’s alleged conversion from Sunni to Shia was only raised for the first time and that he was unable to offer explanation for this conversion. At [51] of the Board’s Decision, the Board also remarked that the applicant claimed for the first at the hearing before the Board that the SSP had issued a fatwa against him. In the circumstances, despite the fact that the Board had not made a finding on internal relocation, I am satisfied that there is no procedural unfairness upon the Board having refused to accept the credibility and the reliability of the applicant’s account.
9. Hence, I find that the applicant has not provided any valid grounds, whether written or oral, in support of the Leave Application. The applicant has not shown any errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. The applicant’s intended challenge to the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success such that would enable this court to grant leave[5].
Order
10. The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Dated the 10th day of April 2026
| |
( Alfred CHAN )
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 10/4/2026
Rashid Zaman
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 10/4/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 15281/19/1/154/P3052, TCAB 20/12/12/20/P291
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 4524/18 (Formerly as RBCZ 2000121/14 and RBCZ 505/06), QA T/C 808/12 (formerly as RBCZ/505/06)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
[1] The applicable grounds are risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance (“torture risk”) , BOR 2 risk (this refers to the risk of violation of the right to life under Art. 2 of s.8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”), BOR 3 risk (this refers to the risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Art 3 of HKBOR) and persecution risk (This refers to the risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Art. 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol) under the USM (This refers to the Hong Kong Government’s Unified Screening Mechanism (“USM”) implemented since 3 March 2014 to process claims for non-refoulement protection. For a detailed description of the USM, see the judgment of Zervos J in HKSAR v Vu Thang Duong & Anor [2015] 3 HKC 293.
[2] Re Zunartyah [2018] HKCA 14 at [23].
[3] Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection, HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016 at [142].
[4] 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.
[5] Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676