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

HCAL 1770/2021

[2026] HKCFI 1650

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1770 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;

1.  The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.

2.  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 31 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 8 December 2021 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 9 June 2021 (“Director’s Decision”) rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds[1]. The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlink: -

    https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL001770_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.  In the Form 86, the applicant named the adjudicator of the Board as the proposed respondent and the Board as the interested party. As the Board should have been the proper respondent and the Director the proper interested party, the Form 86 shall be amended on the court’s own motion.

3.  The basis of the applicant’s claim was that, if refouled to Pakistan, he would be harmed or killed by a member of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party after the applicant refused to help him to secure votes in the village when the former was running for the position of General Councilor. 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 also adopt the Board’s abbreviations and descriptions stated in the Board’s Decision.

4.  At the applicant’s request for a hearing of the Leave Application, this court scheduled a hearing on 12 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

5.  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.

6.  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 affirmation provided no such grounds.

7.  At the hearing, this court asked the applicant to clarify who were the “they” he referred to in the affirmation. The applicant said that he had nothing to say, and just wished the court to review his case, as he would be harmed if refouled.

8.  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, while the Board accepted the FIR regarding the murder of Tariq was genuine, and that Tariq was his cousin/brother-in-law, the Board found that the other essential aspects of the applicant’s evidence did not stand up to scrutiny due to the contradictions and the lack of detail. The Board found that the applicant had fabricated the activities regarding Javaid. Instead, the Board found that Javaid did not run for election as the applicant alleged. Neither had Javaid ever demanded the applicant to switch his political allegiance or ill-treated him. The Board found that the applicant never faced any danger or risk or would he face any risk of harm if refouled. It further found that state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available. These are findings of fact, which the court in a judicial review will not interfere with, subject to there being any public law errors.

9.  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. 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 Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.

11.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review 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