AHMED WAQAS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 1514/2021

[2025] HKCFI 377

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1514 OF 2021

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord 53 r 3)

Following:

	consideration of the documents only;            or
	consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court / the Applicant being absent in open court;

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  The Applicant is a 37-year-old national of Pakistan who entered Hong Kong illegally on 28 December 2019 and surrendered to the Immigration Department on 5 May 2020 when he raised a non-refoulement claim for protection on the basis that if he returned to Pakistan he would be harmed or killed by certain local supporters of the political party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (“PTI”) as he supported their rival Pakistan Muslim League (N) (“PML(N)”). He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2.  The Applicant was born and raised in Hazro City, District Attock, Punjab Province, Pakistan. After leaving school he worked as a farmer and labourer in his home district, and supported PML(N) regularly attended their local meetings and activities.

3.  In 2018 while assisting in their election campaign, the Applicant was approached by some local PTI supporters to join their party, but when he refused, they then made threats against him, and after being attacked by them on several occasions, the Applicant became fearful for his safety and in March 2019 fled to Lahore and then Rawalpindi to take shelter in a friend’s place, and on 7 October 2019 he departed Pakistan for China, and from there he later sneaked into Hong Kong and subsequently raised his claim for protection, for which he completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) on 1 March 2021 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation.

4.  By a Notice of Decision dated 25 May 2021 the Director of Immigration (“Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“Torture Risk”), risk of his absolute or non-derogable rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383 (“HKBOR”) being violated including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 Risk”), risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of HKBOR (“BOR 3 Risk”), and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (“Persecution Risk”).

5.  In his decision the Director took into account of all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and found no substantial grounds for believing that there will be any real and substantial risk of him being harmed or killed by those local PTI supporters upon his return to Pakistan due to the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from them, that there is no evidence of any real intention of them to seriously harm or kill him or any political reason to specifically target him given that he was just an ordinary PML(N) supporter without any official post in the party, that in any event in the absence of any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant if resorted to, and that reliable and objective Country of Origin Information (“COI”) show that reasonable internal relocation alternatives are available in Pakistan with a large population of 233 million people spread across a vast territory of more than 796,000 square kilometers that it would not be unduly harsh for the Applicant as an able-bodied adult with working experience to move to other areas of the country away from his home district in large cities such as Islamabad or Karachi where it would be difficult if not impossible for anyone to locate him.

6.  On 7 June 2021 the Applicant lodged an appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s decision, and for which he attended an oral hearing on 10 September 2021 before the Board during which he gave evidence and answered questions raised of his claim by the Adjudicator for the Board. On 25 October 2021, his appeal was dismissed by the Board which also confirmed the Director’s decision.

7.  In its decision the Board found material inconsistencies and discrepancies in the Applicant’s evidence that it doubted the credibility of his claim of fear of harm from those local PTI supporters that caused him to leave his country to come to Hong Kong to seek protection, that in any event there was no reliable evidence of any real intention of them to seriously harm or kill him or any political reason to specifically target him given that he was just an ordinary PML(N) supporter, and that in any event in the absence of any official involvement that state or police protection would be available to the Applicant upon his return to as well as reasonable internal relocation alternatives for him to move safely to other parts of the country away from his home district without any risk of being located that his claim for non-refoulement protection failed on all applicable grounds.

8.  On 2 November 2021 the Applicant filed his Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision, but no ground for seeking relief was given in his Form or his supporting affirmation of the same date to which he just attached a copy of the decision but without putting forth any proper ground for his intended challenge. As such, and in the absence of any error of law or irrationality or procedural unfairness in his process before the Board or in its decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not find any reasonably arguable basis for his intended challenge of the Board’s decision.

9.  As has been repeatedly emphasized by the Court of Appeal, judicial review does not operate as a rehearing of a non-refoulement claim when the proper occasion for the Applicant to present and articulate his claim is in the screening process and interview before the Immigration Department and in the process before the Board where the evaluation of the risk of harm is primarily a matter for the Director and the Board as they are entitled to make such evaluation based on the evidence available to them that the court will not usurp their role as primary decision makers in the absence of any legal error or procedural unfairness or irrationality in their decisions being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, as judicial review is not an avenue for revisiting the assessment by them in the hope that the court may consider the matter afresh: 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.

10.  In the Applicant’s case, the fact is that it has been established by both the Director and the Board in their respective decisions that the risk of harm in his claim even if real is a localized one and that it is not unreasonable or unsafe for him to relocate to other part of Pakistan, there is simply no justification to afford him with non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong: see TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526.

11.  Having considered the decisions of both the Director and the Board with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I do not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in either of them, nor any failure on their part to apply high standards of fairness in their consideration and assessment of the Applicant’s claim.

12.  Moreover, the Applicant recently on 19 December 2024 filed an affirmation requesting to withdraw his application as his problem in his home country has now been resolved.

13.  In the premises, as I am for the given reasons not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in the Applicant’s intended application for judicial review, and in view of his latest confirmation of no problem returning to his home country, I accordingly dismiss his 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