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

Case No.HCAL 674/2020[2025] HKCFI 5290

Court

High Court CFI

Date07 Nov 2025

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 674/2020

[2025] HKCFI 5290

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 674 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Lamiatun	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 the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:

1.  The Applicant’s Form 86 be amended to name the DI as a putative interested party;

2.  Extension of time to file Form 86 be refused; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 16 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 23 June 2017 (“the TCAB Decision”). A copy of the TCAB Decision can be viewed by the following hyperlink[1].

2.The TCAB Decision was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 30 October 2015 and 5 December 2016. On my own motion, I amended the Form 86 and added the DI as a putative interested party. It should be noted that the DI made a further assessment on the Applicant’s “subsequent claim” on 5 May 2020 (apparently under sections 37ZO and 37ZP of the Immigration Ordinance), but there is no indication that the later decision is the subject of the present proceedings.

3.The Applicant was absent from the oral hearing of this leave application. On the authority of Re Abdus Salam [2019] HKCA 1091, I proceed to deal with the leave application based on the materials placed before me.

4.This leave application was seriously out of time. Order 53, rule 4(1) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A) requires an application for leave to apply for judicial review to be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when grounds for the application first arose. The last day of the 3-month period for the Applicant to file his Form 86 fell on 23 September 2017, the Applicant was therefore over 2.5 years late with this application. In considering whether to extend the period within which the application shall be made, the Court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the merits of the intended application; and (iv) any prejudice to the putative respondent and to public administration (Re Thomas Lai [2014] 6 HKC 1; and AW v Director of Immigration & Anor [2016] 2 HKC 393.

5.There was no explanation for the delay in the Form 86 or supporting affirmation. This alone is sufficient for me to dismiss the leave application, but I shall also touch on merits of the case in brief. The Applicant’s claim was based on a money lending dispute with a loan shark. After an oral hearing, the TCAB found that the Applicant was not credible for she had given different versions of reasons for borrowing money. In any event, there was also reasonable internal relocation alternative.

6.In his Form 86 and supporting affirmation, the Applicant did not point to any actual errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision. It has been reiterated time and again that the primary responsibility for the factual assessment of whether any risk of ill-treatment exists lies with the TCAB. In the absence of any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, the Court would not reopen the TCAB’s findings or make a determination on the case afresh. The role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal (see Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246).

7.I have reviewed the TCAB Decision vigorously, but do not find the proposed judicial review reasonably arguable. By reason of the lack of merits in this leave application and the serious delay, extension of time to file Form 86 is refused. The leave application is accordingly dismissed.

Dated the 7^th day of November 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 7 November 2025 Lamiatun 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 7 November 2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 2563/15/11/75/I213 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1169/15 (formerly RBCZ 497/14); QA T/C 497/14 (formerly RBCZ 497/14) RBCZ 9000844/16; L/M (20718) in ImmD RA 7/37/C (Formerly RBCZ/497/14, RBCZ/9000844/16) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)