|
HCAL 2333/2025
[2026] HKCFI 751
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2333 of 2025
BETWEEN
|
Shamshad |
Applicant |
|
and |
|
|
Torture Claims Appeal Board/
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Putative 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 9 May 2025 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 9 August 2025. His application was filed on 17 October 2025, which is late for more than 2 months. This issue will be dealt with below.
2. The applicant appeared before the Court on 19 January 2026.
The applicant
3. The applicant is a national of Pakistan. He is an illegal immigrant. He lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by his cousin over a land dispute.
4. Details of the applicant’s story can be found in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL002333_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. By Notice of Decision dated 2 January 2025 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director refused the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.
The Board’s Decision
7. The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 17 March 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing. He had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.
8. Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below.
(1) The Board found that his claim on the land and his cousin was unreliable and incredible as he did not have knowledge of the details of the land and there was inconsistency in his evidence. [65]
(2) Even if his evidence on the land were accepted, there was no reason for the cousin to target him only without the other members of the family. [66]&[69]
(3) He was unable to explain how his cousin would obtain the interest of the land by his death. [68]
(4) Even if his evidence were accepted, his claim would still fail as he would face no real risk if he returns to Pakistan. [87]
(5) State protection will be available. [91]&[108]
(6) Internal relocation is viable. [136]
9. For the reasons above, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.
Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision
10. The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 17 October 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
11. In support of his application, the applicant raised the grounds below to challenge the Board’s Decision.
(1) The Board’s Decision is unreasonable and incorrect.
(2) The Board had relied too much on the country of origin information without considering his personal background or experience.
(3) The Board was unfair as it demanded him to answer questions that he was not in a position to offer any response.
(4) The Board did not give him sufficient time and opportunity to arrange evidence of his appeal.
(5) The Board’s Decision lacks all necessary details.
DISCUSSION
12. 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, inter alia, the prospect of success of the intended application. I shall consider the merits of the applicant’s case.
13. The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, the applicant said that he did not know if the Board’s Decision was wrong.
14. 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.”
15. Those grounds under paragraph 11 are bare assertions and are invalid to challenge the Board’s findings.
16. In the circumstances, the applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
DISPOSITION
17. 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 16th day of February 2026
| |
(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 16/2/2026
Shamshad
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 16/2/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 25438
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: INCL 1276-24(2) (CZ)
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.
|