RAJA TARIQ MAHMOOD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1591/2025

[2026] HKCFI 3555

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1591 of 2025

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following:

	consideration of documents only;          or
	consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court;

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused. 

THE APPLICATION

1.  The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 19 June 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 did not ask for a 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 Shia Muslims due to religious differences, and the Manzoor family who had filed a case against him, accusing him of murdering a servant.

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/HCAL001591_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 24 March 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 5 June 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)  The applicant’s evidence is highly inconsistent with the country of origin information (“COI”) in relation to the situation for the Shia community in Pakistan. [60]

(2)  For those reasons set out in paragraphs 62-68, the Board formed the view that the applicant had fabricated his claim. [61]

(3)  The Board did not accept his allegations that he was involved in the political disputes and was targeted by the Shia community; that he had posted any messages on Facebook that caused the ire of the Shia community; that the Shia had dispossessed his land; and there were false charges against him for a murder. [69]

(4)  For the reasons above, the Board was not satisfied that he will face any of the applicable risks if he returns to Pakistan. [72]

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 14 July 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

12.  In support of his application, the applicant has raised the grounds below to challenge the Board’s Decision.

(1)  The Board’s Decision is wrong as it did not consider his right to life.

(2)  The adjudicator had relied too much on the COI without considering his personal background and experience.

(3)  The adjudicator was unfair as she requested him to answer questions that he was not in a position to offer any response.

(4)  The adjudicator failed to consider the nexus of political parties and official corruption in Pakistan, causing persecution.

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 the applicant’s bare assertions without any evidence in support. They are invalid to challenge the Board’s Decision.

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.

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