Ali Zulfiqar v. Director of Immigration

HCAL 2458/2024

[2025] HKCFI 175

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2458 OF 2024

________________________

________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

A.  Introduction

1.The Applicant made a previous application for leave to apply for judicial review in HCAL 104/2012. When he filed these proceedings, the Applicant was directed by the Registrar to show why this subsequent application issued in these proceedings should not be struck out. The Applicant offered the explanation that the previous application was against the Adjudicator’s decision not to afford him an oral hearing in his appeal before the Torture Claims Appeal Board, whereas the present application seeks to challenge a Deportation Order issued against him.

2.I was satisfied that the two applications are indeed different, and concern different subject matters, so that the present application should not be struck out for that reason. However, having considered the present application on the papers (as seems to me to be appropriate), the application nevertheless falls to be dismissed as being without merit, for the following reasons.

B.  The Intended Challenge

3.The Form 86 is dated 11 December 2024, though it was apparently filed on the following day. By the Form 86, the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review so as to challenge the Deportation Order dated 27 March 2024 made against him.

4.A copy of the Deportation Order is exhibited to the Applicant’s affirmation, and identifies that it was made pursuant to section 20(1)(a) of the Immigration Ordinance Cap 115 on the basis that the Applicant is a person who is not a Hong Kong permanent resident and who has been found guilty in Hong Kong of an offence punishable with imprisonment for not less than two years.

5.No grounds upon which relief is sought are set out in the Form 86. Nor are any grounds identified in the supporting affirmation, which merely states that the Applicant wishes “to invalidate the deportation Order dated 27 March 2004 due to irregularities contained therein”. However, no alleged irregularity is actually specified.

C.  No Merit

6.It is trite that an applicant seeking leave to apply for judicial review must set out in the application (amongst other things) the relief sought and the grounds on which it is sought, and also provide an affidavit verifying the facts relied upon: see Rules of the High Court Order 53 rule 3(2). It is not for the Court to seek to divine or identify for an applicant potential public law grounds of review, or seek to divine or identify what facts might be relied upon in support of any particular ground.

7.The Applicant’s failure to identify any grounds of review in the Form 86, and the Applicant’s mere statement that he wishes to invalidate the Deportation Order due to unspecified irregularities, do not satisfy the mandatory requirements.

8.It is also trite that an applicant seeking leave to apply for judicial review must make the application promptly and in any event within 3 months from the date of the impugned decision, unless an extension of time is sought and obtained.

9.In this case, the impugned decision of the Deportation Order was made on 27 March 2024. The long stop period within which to seek to challenge it expired before the end of June 2024. However, the Applicant’s application was made almost 6 months after that. No explanation has been offered for the delay, and indeed no application for an extension of time has been made for the late application.

D.  Result

10.The application is made out of time, and no basis has been identified as to why any discretion should be exercised in favour of the grant of an extension of time to make it. In any event, the Applicant has failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds of review, let alone any with any realistic prospect of success.

11.In the circumstances, the Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed. I make no order as to costs.

The applicant, acting in person