ALI ASGHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 1150/2025
[2025] HKCFI 5808
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1150 of 2025
| BETWEEN | ||
| Ali Asgher | 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:
consideration of documents only; or consideration of documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court.
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 9 May 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, having sneaked into Hong Kong illegally on 9 May 2024. He was arrested. 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 Mr. Afzaal, who had bought a mobile phone from him and refused to pay. The applicant reported the matter to police. Mr Afzaal took action against him. He shot at the applicant’s leg and killed 3 of his relatives.
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/HCAL001150_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 4 December 2024 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim because it was unsubstantiated.
The Board’s Decision
8. The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 7 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) The Board accepted the applicant’s facts that he had sold a mobile phone to Afzaal, who refused to pay and they had had serious dispute over this matter. However, the Board did not accept the applicant’s allegations that Afzaal had shot his leg; that Afzaal had killed his 3 relatives; that he had received threatening calls from Afzaal directly or through his mother. The Board did not believe that Afzaal has a real intention to seriously harm or to torture, or to kill him if he returns to Pakistan. [31]-[44]
(2) Therefore, the Board did not accept that the applicant will face a real risk of harm by Afzaal or his associates if he returns to Pakistan. [44]
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 19 May 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
12. In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant did not raise any specific ground to challenge the Board’s Decision.
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 Board had carefully considered the applicant’s case and for the reasons given, had accepted part of his story and rejected the rest, which concern the core facts in support of his claim. There is no reason that this Court should interfere with the Board’s decisions.
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 10th day of December 2025
| (Klein Tse) 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
| Notesfor 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 10/12/2025 Ali Asgher 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 10/12/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 25246 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: INCL-0001703-24 (2) (CZ) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1