MUHAMMAD QASIM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

bjbj HCAL 751/2021 [2026] HKCFI 928 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 751 of 2021 BETWEEN Muhammad Qasim Applicant Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent 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; consideration of documents only; or consideration of the documents and the Applicant being absent in open court; Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Jeffrey Chau: Form 86 be amended, naming only the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non refoulement Claims Petition Office as the putative respondent and the Director of Immigration as the putative interested party. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed. Observations for the Applicant: Introduction By a Form 86 dated 24 May 2021 (the Form 86 ), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the TCAB ) dated 25 March 2021 (the TCAB Decision ), which affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (the ) dated 30 October 2017. I amend the Form 86 on my own motion, naming only the TCAB as the putative respondent and the DOI as the putative interested party. The Applicant requested for a hearing of this application. He was absent. I see no irregularity in the notification process. In the Form 86, the Applicant also sought leave for judicial review against the DOI Decision. But the DOI Decision is superseded by the TCAB Decision (Re Moshin Ali [2018] HKCA 549 at [45]). The present application only concerns the TCAB Decision. Background The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. In gist, his case is based on his claim that he will be ill-treated or even killed by the Shias (who supported the PPP) were he to be refouled to his home country. He also feared that there would not be a fair trial for his attempted murder charge. The Applicant s personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the TCAB Decision, which can be viewed through a hyperlink . I shall therefore not repeat them. Unless otherwise specified, TCAB s abbreviations and descriptions are adopted herein. Discussion The leave application operates as a filtering process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at [23]. It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the TCAB Decision and the materials adduced by the Applicant. I remind myself that in a judicial review, this court does not provide a further avenue of appeal. While I also remind myself that in non-refoulement cases, I would adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the TCAB given the seriousness of the issue at hand, this court would not usurp the role of the TCAB, which together with the DOI are the primary decision-makers. A finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the TCAB, and this 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 TCAB: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14(1)]. There must be a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted: Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676. In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly: Ho Loy v Director of Environmental Protection (unreported, HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016) at [142], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit. The Applicant s affirmation enclosed a document titled Grounds on which Relief is sought . However, those grounds are either vague and generic, or concern factual matters which have either been fully considered by the TCAB or are irrelevant. In reality, they did not point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision. As can be seen from the TCAB Decision, the TCAB took into account all the evidence available and found that on the basis of the same, applying the correct legal principles in respect of all applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism, the Applicant s allegations were insufficient to make out any of the applicable grounds [100-102]. This is a clear-cut case. The Applicant simply failed to adduce credible evidence to support his main allegations, and his evidence was full of discrepancies and contradictions. He was found to be an unreliable witness. Further, PPP was no longer in power at the time of the hearing below [82, 86, 87, 94]. There was also no evidence that he would not receive adequate state protection [95], having regard to the country of origin information, the fact that Sunni outnumbered the Shia in the region [52, 86(i)] and, as stated above, PPP was no longer in power [14-24]. There is a clear mismatch between the purported grounds the Applicant raised and the actual findings of the TCAB. It is clear that the grounds are not engaged in view of the TCAB s findings. The TCAB had given every opportunity and assistance to the Applicant to gather relevant information e.g. [21, 77-79] (cf. ground 1). In any event, the TCAB did not commit the legal errors alleged in the grounds. The Applicant also lodged into court a document dated 10 November 2017 which contains an additional ground of appeal . The additional ground of appeal, in gist, sets out the Applicant s concerns of the welfare and future of his 2 children should he be refouled to his home country. The Applicant s family circumstances in Hong Kong are not valid grounds or relevant consideration in relation to his own non refoulement claim: Oguzie Ikechukwu Charles v Torture Claims Appeal Board, unreported, CACV 469/2021, 21 January 2022, [2022] HKCA 135, at [20]. They have also been fully considered by the TCAB in any event [34(h)]. All in all, I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision, despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. The Applicant intended challenge to the TCAB Decision is not reasonably arguable, and accordingly the application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed. Dated the 20th day of February 2026 (Annson CHEUNG)(Ms) 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 20/2/2026 Muhammad Qasim 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 20/2/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent s ref. no.: USM 9146/17/11/157/P1797 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party s ref. no.: QA T/C 1924/17 (formerly RBCZ/2859/14) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) Form CALL-1 HYPERLINK "https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL000751_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf" https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL000751_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf Except a torture claim under s.37U of the Immigration Ordinance Cap 115 [5], the TCAB Decision. PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT wj\U h[lO tj`RF=( hpu' ~xxrlf`ZQKQKQK h#/h hd2j h#/h hM:k h+=3 h+=3 h+=3 hM:k hM:k hM:k h>{) hM:k hM:k hM:k hM:k hM:k hM:k hM:k hM:k h/Pe hM:k hM:k hM:k hM:k hM:k hM:k hM:k h/Pe hM:k hM:k hM:k hM:k hM:k hM:k hM:k hM:k hEzZ hM:k hM:k hM:k hM:k hM:k hM:k h>{) hW0S h[*} hM:k h/Pe hM:k hM:k h/Pe hM:k h??X hM:k hEzZ hM:k hM:k h"_} hM:k wmf`R hM:k tkeWWJAA0 h O@ h O@ gd O@ E4E4! iR=* `VRJFF??FJ h[*} h%?0 M #v ph`^\ [Content_Types].xml _rels/.rels theme/theme/themeManager.xml K Y, sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml z)P -zh 83;3;{ ]XS1IH 0H!A Ssd- ]A3U mH#[ A\;> K}*7c ^I77 >g^* y')f ZI$G ,{uk< WV j k3 zjv3,j X1? Xjg YIsR3 gm~x theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels 5 6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/> Windows User Normal.dotm Microsoft Office Word "System "System "System Times New Roman HCAL /2021 [2026 ] HKCFI Times New Roman Times New Roman IN THE HIGH COURT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST of 202 BETWEEN Muhammad Qasim Applicant Torture Claims Appeal Board/ refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review NOTIFICATION of the Judge decisio n (Ord 53 r 3) Following Wingdings 2 consideration of documents only; or consideration of the documents the Applicant being absent in open court Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non Refoulement Claims) Jeffrey Chau Times New Roman "Arial Form 86 be amended, naming only the Torture Claims Appeal Board refoulement Claims Petition Office as the putative respondent and the Director of Immigration as the putative interested party Times New Roman "Arial The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed. Observations for the Applicant: Times New Roman Introduction "Arial By a Form 86 dated 2021 (the Form 86 ), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against decision by the Torture Claims A ppeal Board (the TCAB ) dated 25 March 2021 (the TCAB Decision ), which affirmed the decision the Director of Immigration (the ) dated 30 October 2017 "Arial Title _PID_HLINKS <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?><b:Sources xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" SelectedStyle="\APASixthEditionOfficeOnline.xsl" StyleName="APA" Version="6"></b:Sources> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> <ds:datastoreItem ds:itemID="{57E9EFC6-2E07-4CFB-B61F-689474438632}" xmlns:ds="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/customXml"><ds:schemaRefs><ds:schemaRef ds:uri="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"/></ds:schemaRefs></ds:datastoreItem> Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8