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

Judgment Date01 June 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] HKCFI 469
Judgement NumberHCAL286/2018
Subject MatterConstitutional and Administrative Law Proceedings
CourtCourt of First Instance (Hong Kong)
HCAL286/2018 WAHEED MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 286/2018

[2020] HKCFI 469

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LISTNo. 286 of 2018

BETWEEN

Waheed Muhammad 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 the documents only; or
consideration of the documents and the Applicant being present / absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan:

Leave to apply for judicial review refused.

Observations for the Applicant:

1. The Applicant is a 37-year-old national of Pakistan who entered Hong Kong illegally on 20 February 2016 and was arrested by police on the same day. After he was referred to the Immigration Department for investigation, he raised a non-refoulement claim on the basis that if he returned to Pakistan he would be harmed or killed by his uncle and/or cousins over certain land and political disputes. He was subsequently released on recognizance pending the determination of his claim.

2. The Applicant was born and raised in Saleem, Khan, Tehsil Hazro, District Attock,Pakistan. After leaving school he worked in various odd jobs in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Dubai. He also became a supporter of the political party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (“PTI”).

3. The Applicant’s father and uncle had inherited certain land from his grandfather in their home village which had become a constant dispute between their families over the distribution of the land as his uncle always demanded for a bigger share, and that his sons,who were all supporters of rival political party Pakistan Muslim League (N) (“PML(N)”),would always use their different political views to create conflicts with the Applicant and his family, and had on occasions even attacked him with wooden sticks that caused fear and injuries to him and drove him in later years to leave Pakistan to work in Saudi Arabia and Dubai in order to avoid their threats and harassments.

4. In June 2014 when the Applicant returned to Pakistan, he stayed away from his home village instead in Rawalpindi and Karachi, but when PTI lost the subsequent general election which was won by PML(N), his cousins started to resume their harassments againsthim and even threatened to kill him for supporting the wrong party, the Applicant thereforebecame concerned for his own safety and again departed Pakistan on 14 February 2016 for China, and from there he sneaked into Hong Kong, and upon his arrest he raised his non- refoulement claim for protection, for which he later completed a Non-refoulement Claim Form on 5 June 2017 and attended screening interview before the Immigration Department with legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service.

5. By a Notice of Decision dated 6 July 2017 the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the Applicant’s claim on all the applicable grounds including risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 (“torture risk”), risk of his absolute or non-derogable rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (“HKBOR”) being violated including right to life under Article 2 (“BOR 2 risk”), risk of torture or cruel,inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”),and risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (“persecution risk”).

6. In his decision the Director took into account all the relevant circumstances of the Applicant’s claim and found no substantial grounds for believing that his fear of being harmed by his cousins upon his return to Pakistan is real or substantial when he had been away all these years and in the absence of any independent and reliable evidence of such threats from the cousins, that in any event these were private family disputes without any official involvement that state or police protection would be...

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