Nadeem Muhammad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
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
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Following:
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longer susceptible to judicial review once an appeal to the Board has been pursued and the Director’s decision has been superseded by the Board’s decision.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 23rd day of May 2025 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
Form CALL-1 [1] In Form 86, the Applicant has erroneously named both the Board and the Director as the proposed respondents and the proposed interested parties. [2] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL000171_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf |
Cases cited in this judgment
Le Thi Lien v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Phophetlep Ruanglid and Another v. Director of Immigration
Aeni Hidayatul v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Pellerin Noemi Solana v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Manoj Kumar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Ram Chena v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Singh Gurpal v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Mohamed Ashraf, Ozair v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Karamjit Singh and Others v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Salauddin Md v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Linda Permatasari v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Warnakulasuriya Mariya Indika and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Ansori v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Endang Rusmini v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Ahauzi Fatkhulloh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Gofran Mohammed v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Abbas Khizar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Elle Gedara Ranjani Kusum Kumari v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Gelvolea Esperanza Torre v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Tamang Jyoti v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 171/2020