BabelCite

Manyali Rehani Mohamed v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Read the full judgment text of HCAL 3179/2019 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.

1. The applicant filed Form 86 on 28 October 2018 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision made on 11 October 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”). However, on the court’s file, there is no such Board’s Decision. There is a Board’s Decision dated 29 November 2019 on the court’s file.

Case No.HCAL 3179/2019[2025] HKCFI 4524
Court
High Court CFI
Date—
Judge—
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCAL 3179/2019

[2025] HKCFI 4524

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 3179 of 2019

BETWEEN    
Manyali Rehani Mohamed 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 documents only;          or
    consideration of documents and Applicant being present in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.The applicant filed Form 86 on 28 October 2018 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision made on 11 October 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”). However, on the court’s file, there is no such Board’s Decision. There is a Board’s Decision dated 29 November 2019 on the court’s file.

2.The Court had made enquiry with the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”), which replied that there is only one Board’s Decision dated 29 November 2019. Under the circumstances, the Court called upon the applicant before it for an explanation.

3.The applicant appeared before the Court on 25 July, 25 August and 15 September 2025. The first 2 hearings were adjourned for him to go home to look for the Board’s Decision.

4.At the adjourned hearing, the applicant confirmed that he was unable to find the Board’s Decision.

5.He further submitted that Form 86 was filed by his agent, not himself.

6.Since the Board’s Decision did not exist when Form 86 was filed, the applicant’s application is a non-starter.

7.In the circumstances, I dismiss the applicant’s application.

Dated the 8th of October 2025

  (M.O. WONG)(Ms)
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 8/10/2025

Manyali Rehani Mohamed

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 8/10/2025
 
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 15099/18/12/456/TA63

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 4311/18 (formerly RBCZ 10722/17)
 
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1