Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Mehmood Qasir v Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [Decision On Leave Application]

Judgment Cited authorities 3 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date02 June 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] HKCFI 1008
Year2020
Judgement NumberHCAL2388/2018
Subject MatterConstitutional and Administrative Law Proceedings
CourtCourt of First Instance (Hong Kong)
HCAL2388/2018 MEHMOOD QASIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 2388/2018

[2020] HKCFI 1008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2388 of 2018

BETWEEN

Mehmood Qasir Applicant
and
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office		 Putative Respondent

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;

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 is not legally represented and he did not request an oral hearing. In the course of hearing similar applications, this Court discovered that most of the applicants appearing in person had no idea of the purpose of judicial review, which is for this Court to examine whether they had had a fair hearing at the Board. They asked the Court to re-examine the facts of the case. The Court will not re-examine the facts in support of the claim. See Re Ali Haider CACV8/2018, [2018] HKCA 222 at §§ 13 & 14. The Court therefore, pursuant to Order 1B, rule 1 (2)(c) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), by letter, invited the applicant to appear before it in order to explain the above to them. At the same time, the Court will examine if the parties in Form 86 are correct. The Court will also see if there are any further grounds in support of the application. In response to the Court’s invitation, the applicant did not attend the hearing on 9 August 2019. I shall deal with his application on the paper.

2. I have identified the following defects in Form 86 for his application:

a. the description for the respondent was wrong; and

b. wrong description of the Board’s decision for his relief.

3. Pursuant to the powers under O.53, r.3(6) and O.20, r.8, RHC, on my own motion, I amend Form 86 by:

a. Deleting the wrong description and adding the Board as the respondent (O.20, r.8);

b. deleting the wrong information and adding the relief of leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision dated 2 October 2018 (O.53, r.3(6)).

The applicant

4. The applicant is a Pakistani national. He came to Hong Kong illegally on 28 December 2012. On 4 February 2013, he was arrested by police and referred to the Immigration Department for investigation. On 9 February 2013, he lodged a torture claim under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“the Ordinance”). His claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) by Notice of Decision dated 27 June 2013. He appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) on 9 July 2013 and his appeal was dismissed by the Board on 11 February 2014. He did not apply for leave for judicial review of this Board’s decision. By written representation of 5 July 2013, he lodged his non-refoulement claim.

5. In support of his claim, he said that if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by Chodhry Tariq Farooq and his followers or supporters of the Pakistan Muslim League-N (“PMLN”) because he was a supporter of their rival party, Pakistan Peoples Party.

6. He had raised two incidents in support of his claim. The first incident was in 2011 where he helped at polling station for the election. Shortly after the election, he was approached by the gangsters of PMLN, threatening him, punching and slapping him several times causing bruises on his body and face. The second incident was that he was threatened by the gangsters to be thrown into the river. He had to move to other places to avoid them. He finally came to Hong Kong.

The Director’s Decision

7. The Director did not consider his torture claim which had been dealt with previously. He considered his application in relation to the following...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT