|
HCAL 858/2025
[2025] HKCFI 4742
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 858 of 2025
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Touqeer Manzoor |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board/ |
Putative |
| |
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
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;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:
1. The extension of time for the application for Judicial Review be refused; and
2. The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
THE APPLICATION
1. The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 18 July 2024 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”). His application is late. His application shall not be later than 3 months from the date of the Board’s Decision[1], which expired on 18 October 2024. His application was filed on 9 April 2025, which is late for more than 5 months. This issue will be dealt with below.
2. The applicant asked for a hearing. However, he was absent at the hearing on 17 September 2025. I shall deal with his application on the papers.
The applicant
3. The applicant is a national of Pakistan. Police arrested him for illegally entering Hong Kong on 21 September 2023 and referred him to the Immigration Department where he lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by members of the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) (“his enemies”) because he refused to join their party and he was a supporter of the Pakistan Tehreek-E-Insaf.
4. His enemies were looking for him whilst he was in Pakistan and he had to move around to avoid them, Details of his story are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL000858_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf.
The Director’s Decision
5. 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”).
6. The Director refused the applicant’s claim for the reason that it was unsubstantiated.
The Board’s Decision
7. The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision dated 12 January 2024 to the Board. On 30 May 2024, the Board conducted an oral hearing. He had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.
8. Having considered the applicant’s evidence, the Board had made the following findings.
(1) He admitted that there was no evidence in support of his case apart from mere assertions. [32]
(2) State protection will be available to him if he returns to Pakistan. [83]
(3) He may relocate to live in cities like Islambad or Karachi. [88]
(4) There was no evidence to show that he had sustained injury caused by his enemies; and there was no evidence to show that there will be real or foreseeable risk if he returns to Pakistan. [89]
(5) His claim on the applicable risks failed. [115]-[118]
Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision
9. The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 9 April 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
10. In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant has, insofar as the Board is concerned, raised the reasons below.
(1) The Board’s Decision is wrong or irrational.
(2) His right to life was not considered.
(3) The Board had placed too much reliance on the country of origin information without taking to account his personal background and experience.
DISCUSSION
11. As mentioned in paragraph 1, this application is late. In AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015, §27 the Court of Appeal held that for extension of time for making the application for leave to apply for judicial review, the Court has to consider (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted. I shall consider the merits of the applicant’s case.
12. The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.
13. 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.”
14. As to the reasons under paragraph 10, (1) and (3) are bare assertions without any evidence in support; (2) is simply not the fact. The Board had considered his right to life.
15. The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
DISPOSITION
16. I refuse to extend time for the applicant to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.
Dated the 23rd day of October 2025
| |
(Allen LEE)
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 23/10/2025
Touqeer Manzoor
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 23/10/2025
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 22846
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
RBCL 1443/23
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
[1]. Delay in applying for relief (O. 53, r. 4)
(1) An application for leave to apply for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when grounds for the application first arose unless the Court considers that there is good reason for extending the period within which the application shall be made. (L.N. 356 of 1988)
(2) Where the relief sought is an order of certiorari in respect of any judgment, order, conviction or other proceeding, the date when grounds for the application first arose shall be taken to be the date of that judgment, order, conviction or proceeding.
|