|
HCAL 279/2023
[2026] HKCFI 3143
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 279 of 2023
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Nawaz Parwez alias Nawaz Parvez |
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 (Non-Refoulement Claims) Martin Wong:
1. The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended to name the TCAB as the putative respondent and the DOI as a putative interested party; and
2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. By a Form 86 filed on 23 February 2023 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 12 January 2023 (the “TCAB Decision”), which affirmed a decision by the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 28 June 2021 in refusing the Applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim. He named the TCAB adjudicator as the proposed respondent and the TCAB as an interested party.
2. I amended the Form 86 on my own motion to name the TCAB as the putative respondent and the DOI as a putative interested party instead.
3. The Applicant requested for a hearing but he was absent at the scheduled hearing on 15 May 2026. From the court record, the Notice of Hearing dated 17 April 2026 was sent to the same address stated in the Form 86 and the affidavit filed in support, and the same address stayed unchanged when the Immigration Department provided updated addresses to the court on 9 March 2026.
4. Bearing in mind what Barma JA held in Re Abdus Salam [2019] HKCA 1091 at [19], i.e. in an application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings, it is not essential for the applicant to attend an oral hearing, when the applicant fails to turn up at an oral hearing he/she had requested, it should be regarded as a decision to forego the right to the requested oral hearing and the court can deal with the application on paper.
5. I therefore decided to proceed to deal with this application on paper notwithstanding the Applicant’s absence at the hearing.
Background
6. The Applicant is a national of India. He seeks non-refoulement protection on the basis that he would be harmed by people from whom he borrowed money and of influential political affiliation. His personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the TCAB Decision, which can be assessed through a hyperlink[1], and I shall not repeat the same herein.
7. In his affirmation filed in support of this application, the Applicant did not point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision.
8. Looking at the TCAB Decision, the TCAB took into consideration the Applicant’s case and evidence and after thorough analysis and assessment, came to find and conclude that none of the Applicant’s allegations was made out [8-12, 25-36].
9. The TCAB also bore in mind the correct legal bases in respect of each of the four applicable grounds under the USM and the assessment approach [15-24], and found and concluded that none was made out [37-40].
10. I do not see any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision, despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.
Conclusion
11. For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that this court should intervene by way of judicial review. I therefore dismiss the application.
Dated the 15th day of June 2026
| |
(Cheung Ho Yat, Annson)
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 15 June 2026
Nawaz Parwez alias Nawaz Parvez
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 15 June 2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 18277
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 530/21 (formerly RBCZ 10847/20)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|