Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 171/2020

[2025] HKCFI 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 171 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Nadeem Muhammad	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:

consideration of the documents only; or

consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court.

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Teresa Wu:

The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 (“Form 86”) dated 16 January 2020, the Applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) of the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 10 September 2019 (“the Director’s Decision”), refusing to re-open his non-refoulement claim on grounds of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (CIDTP).[1]

Discussion

2.The Applicant’s intended challenge of the Director’s Decision is obviously not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success and leave should be refused (see Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung & Another (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676).

3.The Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) received a Notice of Appeal/Petition Non-refoulement Claim (“the Notice of Appeal”) against the Director’s Decision on 4 December 2019 out of time. The deadline for lodging his appeal was 24 September 2019. On 3 March 2020, the Board disallowed the late filing of the Notice of Appeal.[2]

4.As held in Re Moshin Ali[2018] HKCA 549, the decision of the Director is no longer susceptible to judicial review once an appeal to the Board has been pursued and the Director’s decision has been superseded by the Board’s decision. It is therefore not open to the Applicant to challenge the Director’s Decision by way of judicial review.

Conclusion

5.I accordingly make an order that the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 23^rdday of May 2025

( Teresa Ng )
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 the 23^rd day of May 2025 Nadeem Muhammad 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 the 23^rd day of May 2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 16581/19/12/47/P3258 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 801/10(formerly RBCZ/852/09) L/M (19800) in ImmD RA 7/37/C Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)