Benabed Kaddour v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
|
HCAL 1803/2020 [2025] HKCFI 4861 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1803 of 2020
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:
Observations for the Applicant: THE APPLICATION 1.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 22 August 2016 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”). His application is late. His application shall not be later than 3 months from the date of the Board’s Decision[1], which expired on 22 November 2016. His application was filed on 9 September 2020, which is late for more than 3 years and 9 months. This issue will be dealt with below. 2.The applicant did not ask for a hearing. 3.Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the proposed respondent is the Board and the Director of Immigration is the interested party. The applicant 4.The applicant is a national of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria (“Algeria”). He is an illegal immigrant. He had lodged non-refoulement claims, which he subsequently withdrew. The Director of Immigration (“the Director”) permitted him to lodge a subsequent claim. He did so and his application is on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by the Algerian government because he had worked for the Al‑Nusra Front or known as al-Qaeda (“AQI”) and he had supported the Front Islamique du Salut (“FIS”). The Algerian secret police and the security forces hated Islamic parties. 5.Details of the applicant’s story can be found in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL001803_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf. The Director’s Decision 6.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:
7.The Director, by Notice of Decision dated 31 March 2016, (“the Director’s Decision”), refused the applicant’s claim for the reason that it was unsubstantiated. The Board’s Decision 8.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 9 August 2016, the Board conducted an oral hearing. He had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions. 9.Having considered the evidence and materials, the Board found the facts below.
10.For the reasons above, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision. Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision 11.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 9 September 2020 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. 12.In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant repeated his claim that if he is returned to Algeria, his life and his wife’s life will be in danger and he had produced some video to show corruption of the police and their torture to the prisoners. He did not raise any specific ground to challenge the Board’s Decision. DISCUSSION 13.As mentioned in paragraph 1, this application is late. In AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015, §27 the Court of Appeal held that for extension of time for making the application for leave to apply for judicial review, the Court has to consider (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted. He has not explained why he delayed his application. Nevertheless, I shall consider the merits of the applicant’s case. 14.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. 15.In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:
16.The Board had considered his story and the additional video material and the Board had dismissed his appeal. It is obvious that the Board had rejected his evidence in support of his claim. 17.The applicant has not raised any valid ground to challenge the Board’s findings. There is no reason for this Court to interfere with the Board’s Decision. 18.In the circumstances, the applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision. DISPOSITION 19.I refuse to extend time for the applicant to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his application. Dated the 30th day of October 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] Delay in applying for relief (O. 53, r. 4) (1) An application for leave to apply for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when grounds for the application first arose unless the Court considers that there is good reason for extending the period within which the application shall be made. (L.N. 356 of 1988) (2) Where the relief sought is an order of certiorari in respect of any judgment, order, conviction or other proceeding, the date when grounds for the application first arose shall be taken to be the date of that judgment, order, conviction or proceeding. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment