Hameed Mohammad Adil v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

HCAL 3400/2019

[2025] HKCFI 2955

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 3400 OF 2019

Application for leave to apply for judicial review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Order 53, rule 3)

Following:

	consideration of the documents only; or
	consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the applicant or counsel in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Michael WONG:

1.   On this court’s own motion, the name of the putative respondent be amended to “Torture Claims Appeal Board”.

2.   The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the applicant:

The Leave Application

1.By way of Form 86 dated and filed on 15 November 2019, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) in respect of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board ("the Board") dated 1 November 2019 (“the Board's Decision”).  The Board’s Decision can be viewed in the following hyperlink:-

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2019/HCAL003400_2019_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.The Board found that the applicant’s application for non-refoulement protection was not made out on all the applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism.  Hence, the Board refused the applicant’s appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 29 December 2017 and confirmed the same.

Amendment

3.The applicant wrongly named the Director as the putative respondent when the Board should be so named. 

4.Thus, on this court’s own motion, the name of the putative respondent is amended to “Torture Claims Appeal Board”.

The applicant’s case

5.It is not necessary for this court to repeat the details of the applicant’s case here as the same were set out in the Board’s Decision, which can be viewed in the hyperlink above.

6.In sum, the applicant claimed for non-refoulement protection because he feared of harm from Shi’as, particularly Asghar Shah who was the religious head of the Shi’a in his village, if returned to Pakistan.

Change of the applicant’s status

7.By a letter dated 3 June 2025, the Director informed this court that the applicant was  granted stay in Hong Kong on 3 August 2022.

8.Although the applicant did not inform this court about this change of status, there is no reason why this court would not accept the Director’s information in this regard.  Hence, this court accepts that the applicant is now permitted to stay in Hong Kong and the Director will not remove him from Hong Kong.

Discussion

9.Since the applicant was granted stay in Hong Kong, it is clear that he no longer needs non-refoulement protection and the Leave Application serves no practical purpose.

10.It is well established that the court may exercise discretion not to grant a remedy on judicial review if it would serve no practical purpose, where it may have become otiose or pointless to grant a remedy because the relevant detriment to the applicant has been removed (see AW v Director of Immigration and William Lam, CACV 63 of 2015).

11.As it is otiose and pointless to grant leave to the applicant to proceed with the intended judicial review when he has already been granted stay in Hong Kong, this court will not grant any remedy to the applicant and hence the Leave Application ought to be dismissed.

Conclusion

12.For reasons aforesaid, the Leave Application is dismissed.

Dated the 15^thday of July 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