|
HCAL 395/2022
[2026] HKCFI 1021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 395 of 2022
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Saiful Sikdar |
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) Sabrina Ho:
1. The application for extension of time to apply for leave for judicial review be dismissed.
2. The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
Introduction
1. By a Form 86 filed on 27 May 2022 (the “Form”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 7 May 2019 (the “Board’s Decision”).
2. The Leave Applicant is supported by the Applicant’s Affirmation dated 27 May 2022 (the “Affirmation”), which exhibited a copy of the Board’s Decision and a copy of the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 27 June 2018.
3. The Applicant requested an oral hearing, which took place on 21 January 2026 (the “Hearing”).
Background
4. The Applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and the arguments he advanced had been set out in detail in the Board’s Decision, and it is not necessary for me to repeat them here. The hyperlink to the Board’s Decision is included below[1] for reference.
Application for extension of time to take out Leave Application rejected
5. In the Form, the Applicant seeks extension of time to take out the Leave Application.
6. The Board’s Decision was issued on 7 May 2019. The Form was only filed on 27 May 2022, over 3 years later and substantially beyond the time prescribed for filing an application for leave for judicial review of the Board’s Decision, which is 3 months from the date of the said Decision: see Order 53 Rule 4 RHC (Cap. 4A). No explanation has been provided by the Applicant for the delay, whether in the Form or the Affirmation.
7. In considering whether time should be extended for an application for leave for judicial review, the Court will consider, amongst others things, the following:
a. The length of the delay;
b. The explanation of the delay;
c. The merits of the substantive application;
d. The prejudice to the applicant if time is not extended, and the prejudice to the respondent and to public administration if a challenge is allowed to proceed out of time; and
e. The question of general public importance.
See: AW Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63/2015, 3 November 2015 at para. 27
8. As I have pointed out above, the length of the delay was substantial and there was no explanation for the delay. Further, the Leave Application has no merits, for reasons which I will explain below. Hence, I would reject the Applicant’s application for extension of time.
Leave Application unmeritorious
9. The Applicant has not raised any grounds in support of the Leave Application, whether in the Form or the Affirmation.
10. At the Hearing, the Applicant said that he is associated with the Awami League (the “League”) in Bangladesh. The leader of the League had been sentenced to death. In the past 1.5 years, he has lost contact with his family in Bangladesh. He has been involved with a lady in Hong Kong and has a child born here on 12 July 2022, he cannot return to Bangladesh as his wife there would take revenge against him.
11. The relevant legal principles are well established. The Court’s role in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal. The primary decision makers are the Director and the Board. Though in non-refoulement cases, the Court will adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinising the decision of the Board due to the seriousness of the issue at hand, the Court should not usurp the role of the Board. Assessment of evidence, country of origin information (COI) materials, 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, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at para. 14. There must be a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted: see Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676.
12. Having considered all the relevant materials before me, I do not consider the Applicant’s intended challenge against the Board’s Decision to be reasonably arguable with any realistic prospect of success.
13. I have reviewed the Board’s Decision in detail. The Board has fully considered the Applicant’s grounds for challenging the Director’s decision in refusing his claim for non‑refoulment protection. Having considered all the evidence, the Board was unable to accept the Applicant’s key claims on the facts, particularly the reason for his departure from Bangladesh and his alleged fear for returning to Bangladesh: see the Board’s Decision paras. 77-99. On that basis, the Board rejected the Applicant’s appeal: see the Board’s Decision paras. 101-118. I do not consider there to be any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision.
14. The Applicant’s relationship with the lady in Hong Kong and his child in Hong Kong are irrelevant to the Leave Application.
15. Leave application of this sort is meant to be a filtering process and this Court is not expected to give elaborated reasons for its decision: see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at para. 23. I have considered all the relevant documents and the grounds raised by the Applicant in reaching the present decision.
Conclusion
16. For the reasons stated above, I make an order that the Leave Application be dismissed.
Dated the 25th day of February 2026
| |
(Annson Cheung)
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 25/2/2026
Saiful Sikdar
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 25/2/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 12435/18/7/185/B1387
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 1910/18 (formerly RBCZ 2002081/14) [T8S53]
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|