Ikram Muhammad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 686/2020[2025] HKCFI 4037

Court

High Court CFI

Date05 Sep 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 686/2020

[2025] HKCFI 4037

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 686 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Ikram 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) Lewis Law:

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 17 April 2020 (“Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“TCAB”) made on 27 September 2019 (“the TCAB Decision”).

2.The TCAB Decision was not an assessment of the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim. It was instead a decision confirming the Applicant’s withdrawal of an appeal/petition from a decision made by the Director of Immigration (“DI”). According to a copy of the TCAB Decision exhibited to his affirmation, the TCAB received the Applicant’s letter dated 10 September 2019, in which he expressly said he wished to withdraw the appeal/petition. The TCAB did not immediately accede to the withdrawal, but instead wrote back to the Applicant on 19 September 2019 seeking clarification. The Applicant did not further reply. On 27 September 2019, the TCAB said it was satisfied there was good reason for the Applicant to withdraw, particularly when the Applicant himself said he considered it safe for him to return to Pakistan. The withdrawal was thus confirmed.

3.The Applicant’s letter was not exhibited to his affirmation but provided to the Court by the TCAB’s secretariat. The exact words the Applicant used was “I WANT TO GO BACK TO PAKISTAN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE IT IS SAFE FOR ME TO GO BACK AND I HAVE NO MONEY TO BUY AIR TICKET” and “I WANT TO CANCEL ALL MY NONREFOULEMENT CLAIMS IN HONG KONG AND THERE IS NO NEED TO SEE MY CASE OFFICER”.

4.In the oral hearing of this application, the Applicant confirmed he did write to the TCAB on 10 September 2019 to withdraw his appeal/petition and it was done upon his “freewill”. The Applicant’s own volition led to the confirmation of withdrawal by the TCAB on 27 September 2019. The Applicant further confirmed he has no quarrel with the propriety of the TCAB’s acceptance of his withdrawal. He has never said the withdrawal was a nullity or otherwise invalid. In these circumstances, there is no reason to let this leave application go on, not to mention the filing of the Form 86 on 17 April 2020 was actually late – under Order 53, rule 4(1) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A), an application for leave to apply for judicial review should be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when grounds for the application first arose (i.e. by 10 December 2019). The Applicant should not challenge a decision he engineered and is not dissatisfied with. No relief can possibly be granted in such circumstances.

5.As the Applicant further elaborated during the oral hearing, he wanted to stay in Hong Kong and further pursued the intended judicial review because another problem surfaced around 1 month before the oral hearing. This new problem related to a “firing incident at his home [in Pakistan]” and was separate from the original claim considered by the DI. The Court cannot allow this application to continue on that basis. If there is a significant change of circumstances since a previous non-refoulement claim was finally determined or withdrawn, and such change, together with materials previously submitted, would give the Applicant a realistic prospect of success of obtaining non-refoulement protection, the Applicant can at most explore the mechanism under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance with the DI. It is wrong for him to tag on an existing judicial review application, which targeted a decision to confirm his own voluntary withdrawal, for the purpose of establishing his new potential ground of non‑refoulement. This is akin to abuse of process.

6.The leave application to apply for judicial review is thus dismissed.

Dated the 5^th day of September 2025

(Cheung Ho Yat, Annson)
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 5 September 2025 Ikram 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 5 September 2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 14259/18/11/102/P2841 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 3809/18 (formerly RBCZ 13065/16) (PSO) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1