Iqbal Azhar v. Director of Immigration

HCAL 2182/2020

[2025] HKCFI 5130

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2182 of 2020

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 oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong:

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By Form 86 filed on 30 October 2020 (the “Form”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (the “Leave Application”) against the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) dated 6 May 2020 (the “Director’s Decision”).

Discussion

2.The Director’s Decision had already been superseded by the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 25 August 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”). The Director’s Decision is not susceptible to judicial review once an appeal to the Board had been pursued (see Re: Moshsin Ali [2018] HKCA 549, at §§31-45). Accordingly, in so far as the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review in relation to the Director’s Decision, the application fails in limine and is hereby dismissed.

3.The Applicant requested an oral hearing for the application. The hearing took place on 9 September 2025 and the Applicant attended in person.

4.In the Affirmation filed in support of the Leave Application, the Applicant stated that he had not received the Board’s Decision. I asked the Applicant to confirm this at the hearing and the Applicant confirmed that he had not received any decision from the Board. The only decision he had received is the Director’s Decision.

5.I then pointed out to the Applicant that the Board had issued a decision on 25 August 2020 dismissing his appeal. The Applicant said he was not aware of that decision.

6.In the light of the aforesaid, I asked the Applicant to confirm that he only intended to seek leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the Director’s Decision. The Applicant said he did not know, and he would do whatever this Court advised him to do. I explained to the Applicant that it was the Applicant’s application and it was not up to the Court to decide how the Applicant wished to proceed. The Applicant then said he is illiterate, and someone helped him with the application. The Applicant further indicated that he had nothing to say in respect of the Leave Application.

7.As the Applicant insisted that he had not received the Board’s Decision, he could not be applying for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the Board’s Decision. I therefore have to treat the present Leave Application as solely in relation to the Director’s Decision, as stated in the Form.

8.Based on the reasons set out in §2 above, the application is dismissed.

9.This Court also notes that the Leave Application was filed out of time. However, in the light of what I have stated above, the application would have been dismissed even if it was made within time.

10.Lastly, I told the Applicant at the hearing that he should make enquiry with the Board if he maintained that he had not received the Board’s Decision.

Conclusion

11.In the light of the reasons provided above, I make an order that the Leave Application be dismissed.

Dated the 7^th day of November 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