MURTAZA GHULAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1069/2022

[2026] HKCFI 3928

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 1069 of 2022

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 11 October 2022, 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 2 June 2022 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against a decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 30 September 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/2022/HCAL001069_2022_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 Faisal (who was believed to have connections with powerful politicians) and his brother, both of whom wanted to occupy the applicant’s farmland.  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 4 June 2026. The applicant attended the hearing in person, and stated that he had nothing to say.

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. The Form 86 provided no such grounds. In the supporting affirmation, the applicant complained that the Board did not give him an oral hearing.

6.  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, the Board had decided to deal with the applicant’s appeal by way of a paper review after having regard to the fact that the applicant had provided everything he wished for his appeal. The Board accepted that the applicant’s account that he had a dispute with Faisal and Ali in relation to the land owned by his father, and that he was assaulted twice and sustained some injuries. However, the Board found that the injuries were not serious and that the brothers had no real wish to seriously harm the applicant. It further found that Faisal and Ali had not shown any serious or continued interest in the applicant or his family; or any interests in pursuing the applicant should he return to Pakistan. The Board further found that internal relocation would be reasonably viable. These are findings of fact, which the court in a judicial review will not interfere with, subject to there being any public law errors.

7.  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 was not able to demonstrate how the Board’s decision in not holding an oral hearing was erroneous in law. 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

8.  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 more than 1 month.

9.  At the hearing, when the court asked him for the reason for the delay, the applicant only stated that he married a Hong Kong resident 2 years ago and had applied for a dependent visa.

10.  The applicant’s marriage has nothing to do with his delay. Despite the relatively short period of delay, I do not accept he had provided good reason for the delay. In the circumstances, 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