GHULAM MURTAZA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 2779/2019

[2025] HKCFI 2770

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2779 OF 2019

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 / the Applicant being absent in open court;

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.  By a written significance dated 16 January 2014 the Applicant indicated to the Immigration Department of his intention to seek non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong.

2.  By a letter dated 24 March 2014 the Director of Immigration (“Director”) requested the Applicant to provide more information regarding the matters raised in his written signification as Section 37X (2) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 requires that such signification must give a general indication of his reasons for claiming non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong.

3.  The Applicant however failed to reply or respond to the request, and by a letter dated 10 April 2014 the Director informed the Applicant that his claim for non-refoulement protection was not made as his written signification did not give any indication of his reasons for claiming non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong which may relate to an act falling within the meaning of torture risk, BOR 3 risk or persecution risk.

4.  More than 5 years later on 23 September 2019 the Applicant filed a Form 86 for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) which he dated 19 August 2019, but no ground for seeking relief was given in his Form or in his supporting affirmation of the same date in which he just stated as follows:

“I can’t go back to my country at this moment because my life is not save in my own country. Please help me to reopen my case again.”

5.  As the Applicant did not attach a copy of the alleged decision of the Board to his affirmation, the Court on 16 November 2021 wrote to the Board for a copy of its decision regarding any claim or appeal by the Applicant.

6.  By a letter dated 7 December 2021 the Board replied to confirm that it has no record of any appeal/petition filed by the Applicant against any decision of the Director regarding any non-refoulement claim made by him.

7.  Thereafter and despite repeated requests by the Court, the Applicant has failed to clarify exactly what decision of the Board that he intended to challenge by way of his application, nor in fact has he responded to any of the Court’s enquires.

8.  In the premises, and for the given reasons, I do not find any basis for the Applicant’s to apply for judicial review of any decision of the Board as none has been made, never mind that such an application would have been clearly and seriously out of time, accordingly I therefore dismiss his 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