HUSSAIN CHAUDHRY FAISAL alias CH FAISAL HUSSAIN alias HUSSAIN CHAUDHRY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1150/2021

[2026] HKCFI 2512

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1150 of 2021

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’s submissions in open court;

1.  Extension of time to file Form 86 be refused;

2.  The Applicant’s surname in the Form 86 be amended from “Chaudhary” to Chaudhry” on the Court’s own motion;

3.  The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  By a Form 86 filed on 16 August 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 23 February 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”), which was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from a decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 24 July 2017. A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1]. Comparing (a) the name of the Applicant stated in the Form 86 with (b) the name of the appellant/petitioner in a copy of the Board’s Decision and (c) the name of the Applicant in the Recognizance issued by the DI, it seems there was a typo of the Applicant’s surname in the Form 86. On my own motion, the name is amended as per paragraph 2 of my order above.

2.  This application was seriously out of time; delay alone would have caused me to dismiss this application. I would however also consider the merits of the application in deciding whether extension of time should be granted.

3.  The Applicant is a Pakistani national. His non-refoulement claim was based on a risk of harm from the family of a female he had dated, which was allegedly connected to a political party called PML(N). The Applicant himself was said to be a supporter of PPP, a rival political party.

4.  After an oral hearing, the Board came to the view that the Applicant’s claim was not credible due to his inconsistent evidence and non-persuasive explanations.

5.  The Applicant has not set out any grounds of judicial review in the Form 86 or supporting affirmation against the Board’s Decision. In the oral hearing before this Court, the Applicant only explained he had been imprisoned for a period of time after the Board’s Decision and was hence late in filing this leave application. He did not give any argument whether and why the Board had committed any public law error.

6.  I have considered the Board’s Decision vigorously. I am unable to detect any reasonable argument that the Board’s Decision was vitiated by public law errors. I therefore refuse to grant extension of time to file the Form 86 and accordingly dismiss this leave application.

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