|
HCAL 1202/2025
[2026] HKCFI 748
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1202 of 2025
BETWEEN
|
Asif Ubaid |
Applicant |
|
and |
|
|
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Putative 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 K.W. Lung:
Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused.
Observations for the Applicant:
THE APPLICATION
1. The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 28 February 2025 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”), dismissing the appeal against the Director’s Decision as described below.
2. The applicant appeared before the Court on 19 January 2026. He applied for legal aid on 5 January 2016 and the Court received notice of his application from the Legal Aid Department on 6 January 2026. When asked why he made his application shortly before the hearing, he explained that he did not know about legal aid until his friend told him so. His explanation was not acceptable as he was assisted by a duty lawyer when he lodged his non-refoulement claim before the immigration officer. The Court also took into consideration that there is no merit in his application as the Board rejected his evidence on the facts of his claim. The Court decided not to adjourn the hearing under section 15(4) of the Legal Aid Ordinance, Cap. 91, and section 7A of the Legal Regulations. The Court proceeded with the hearing.
3. Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the proposed respondent is the Board and the Director of Immigration is the interested party.
The applicant
4. The applicant is a national of Pakistan. He is an illegal immigrant. He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by the members of the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) (“the enemies”) because he was a supporter of its rival party, the Pakistan Teherrk-e-Insaf and he refused to quit his political party to join them.
5. Details of his claim are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink.
https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001202_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf
The Director’s Decision
6. The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:
a. risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);
b. risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);
c. risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and
d. risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).
7. By way of Notice of Decision dated 2 January 2025 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.
The Board’s Decision
8. The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 26 February 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing for his appeal. He had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.
9. Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below.
(1) His evidence was based on unreliable and questionable facts. His evidence was therefore speculative and incredible. The Board did not accept that he will be harmed or killed by his enemies if he returns to Pakistan. [59]
(2) There is no real risk if he returns to Pakistan. [60]
(3) He failed for all the applicable risks.
10. For the reasons above, the Board dismissed his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.
Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision
11. The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 23 May 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
12. In support of his application, the applicant has raised the ground below to challenge the Board’s Decision.
(1) The Board failed to give sufficient chance to him to arrange relevant evidence in support of his appeal.
(2) The Board failed to give effect to his rights under the law and the Convention.
DISCUSSION
13. The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).
14. The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.
15. In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:
“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and 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 or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.”
16. The grounds under paragraph 12 are his bare assertions without any evidence in support. The Board came to its conclusion that his evidence was incredible through its cross-examination of his evidence. There is no basis for this Court to interfere with the Board’s findings.
17. The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
DISPOSITION
18. I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.
Dated the 16th day of February 2026
| |
(Allen LEE) |
| |
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 16/2/2026
Asif Ubaid
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 16/2/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 25389
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: INCL 1943-23(6) (CZ)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|