ANJUM ATIF v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1629/2025

[2026] HKCFI 2866

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1629 of 2025

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 oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

1.  There shall be no extension of time for the applicant to file the application for leave to apply for judicial review out of time.

2.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.  By a “Notice of application for leave to apply for judicial review” in the prescribed Form 86 filed on 18 July 2025, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 22 November 2024 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against a decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 10 November 2021 rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds[1]. The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlink: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001629_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.  The basis of the applicant’s claim was that, if refouled to Pakistan, he would be harmed or killed by some of the members of the PML(N) after he changed allegiance to the opposition party to join Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (“PTI”). He additionally feared the unjustified arrest made by police after the PML(N) framed up the applicant after a shooting incident. The Board’s reasoning and findings were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision and it is not necessary for me to repeat them. Unless otherwise specified, I shall also adopt the Board’s abbreviations and descriptions stated in the Board’s Decision.

3.  At the applicant’s request for a hearing of the Leave Application, this court scheduled a hearing on 24 March 2026. The applicant attended the hearing in person. After having heard from him, this court informed him that the decision would be reserved, and be sent to his updated address.

Discussion

4.  A leave application operates as a ‘filtering’ process. Hence, there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision.[2] It is therefore sufficient to state my observations after considering the Board’s Decision and the applicant’s materials adduced.

5.  In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly[3], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit. In the Form 86, the applicant alleged in broad terms that the Board was wrong, procedurally improper and unfair. The supporting affirmation provided no such grounds.

6.  At the hearing, the applicant stated that he had nothing to add to his written grounds.

7.  As the Courts have repeatedly stated, a finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the Board, which a court in a judicial review will not interfere with unless such finding involved an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.[4] In the present case, while the Board accepted the applicant’s account in relation to the attacks by the PML(N) and their filing a case against the applicant, it nonetheless rejected the applicant’s claimed fear of harm or being killed as real and foreseeable. This is because the Board found that the relevant members of PML(N) had no real intention to seriously harm the applicant. The Board found that the applicant would not face any risk of harm if refouled. It further found that state protection and internal relocation were reasonably available. These are findings of fact, which the court in a judicial review will not interfere with, subject to there being any public law errors.

8.  Bearing in mind the enhanced standard that should be adopted in scrutinizing the Board’s Decision, this court is satisfied that the Board correctly applied the law relating to all the grounds and observed a high standard of fairness. The applicant’s grounds stated in the Form 86 were general and did not condescend to particulars. The applicant has not shown any errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. The applicant’s intended challenge to the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success such that would enable this court to grant leave[5].

Whether to extend time for the late application

9.  Another matter I need to consider is the delay. Pursuant to O 53 r 4(1) of the Rules of the High Court, an application to apply for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within 3 months from the date of the Board’s Decision. The applicant was late for about 5 months.

10.  When the court asked the applicant the reason for the delay, the applicant attributed to his detention at the Castle Peak Detention Center of the Immigration Department. He said that he was detained in around July 2024 for about 33 days, and did not receive the Board’s Decision. However, since when the Board’s Decision was delivered, the applicant was no longer in detention, I therefore asked the applicant to clarify. The applicant insisted that he did not receive the Board’s Decision, and stated that he had nothing more to say. I reject the applicant’s explanation for the delay. The applicant plainly could not rely on his detention as the reason for the delay. In the absence of good reason for the delay, and coupled with the lack of good prospects of success of his intended challenge, I refuse to exercise my discretion to grant the applicant an extension of the time to file the Leave Application out of time.

Orders

11.  There shall be no extension of time for the applicant to file the application for leave to apply for judicial review out of time.

12.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

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