JAMSHAID MUHAMMAD v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1160/2021

[2026] HKCFI 2513

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1160 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 the Applicant’s submissions in open court;

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  By a Form 86 filed on 17 August 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 9 August 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”). The Board’s Decision was made after an oral hearing on 3 June 2021 of the Applicant’s appeal/petition from the Director of Immigration (“DI”)’s first-tier decision dated 26 October 2018. A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1].

2.  The Applicant is a Pakistani national. His claim for non-refoulment protection arose from a fatal traffic accident, in which he was the driver, and the threat from the deceased’s family. The Board considered the Applicant’s risk not falling within the meaning of torture (including its extended meaning by State acquiescence), that there was nothing to show a risk of violation of the rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, and that the claim did not fall within a Refugees Convention ground for persecution risk to become applicable. Reasonable internal relocation alternative was also found.    

3.  The Applicant has not set out any grounds of judicial review suggesting why the Board’s Decision was vitiated by public law error. During the oral hearing of this leave application, he did not add anything to the papers he filed in support of the application.

4.  It is trite that judicial review is not a rehearing of the merits of a non-refoulement claim. In the absence of any valid argument that the Board had committed a legal error, been irrational in its reasoning or conducted its procedure unfairly, this Court has no basis to quash the Board’s Decision.     

5.  I have considered the Board’s Decision vigorously, but am unable to detect any reasonable argument that it should be quashed. This application for leave to apply for leave is therefore 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