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

HCAL 1053/2025

[2025] HKCFI 6135

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 1053 OF 2025

_____________

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

The application

1.The applicant is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission and he lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director rejected his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). Having considered his evidence, the Board, by its Decision dated 19 March 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

2.Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the applicant filed Form No. 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.By Form CALL-1 dated 13 October 2025 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that there is no realistic prospect of success in his intended application.

4.The Court’s decision was sent to the applicant on 13 October 2025 at his last known address without being returned from the Post Office. He is deemed to receive the Court’s decision[1].

5.The time for filing the notice of appeal expired on 27 October 2025[2].

6.By summons filed on 5 November 2025, the applicant applied for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time. He is late for 9 days.

7.In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant said that he did not receive the court’s letter. He has raised the grounds below in support of his application.

(1)  There has been procedural unfairness because he was not given a hearing for him to present his case to the Court.

(2)  He did not have adequate interpretation or legal assistance.

(3)  The judge failed to apply anxious scrutiny to his case,

(4)  The Court has not considered his affirmation in support of his application.

(5)  The Board had misinterpreted his evidence, disregard material facts and failed to conduct a fair assessment of risk, which the Court failed to clarify in its decisions.

(6)  The judge failed to consider whether the Board’s findings on internal relocation and state protection were rational and supported by evidence.

Discussion

8.Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A and Order 53, rule 3(3) of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reason, I decide to determine this application on paper without an oral hearing[3].

9.The Court will consider the factors as set out in AW v Director of Immigration and William Lam [2016] 2 HKC 393 at para. 27(3) in considering if extension of time should be extended: (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. I shall consider the merits of his case.

10.In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, the Court of Appeal held:

“19. The prospect of success of the intended appeal is important: the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued, see Re Rahman Wasif [2019] HKCA 299 at [13]; Re Kpamou Gbotoi Bernard [2019] HKCA 168; and Re Irshad Muhammad [2018] HKCA 864 at [16].”

11.The applicant claimed that if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by his enemies because he refused to pay them extortion money.

12.The Director rejected his claim because it was not substantiated. He appealed to the Board.

13.Having considered the evidence, the Board dismissed his appeal for the reason that there is no evidence that his enemies will kill him if he returns to Pakistan; that state protection will be available and internal relocation is viable at cities such as Lahore or Sialkot City.

14.As to those reasons under paragraph 7, they fail because (1) he did not request a hearing and the law provides that no hearing should be conducted for his ex parte application; (2) he is not entitled to free legal assistance or interpretation at all stages of the proceedings, as held by the Court of Appeal; (3) & (4) they are only his bare assertions without any evidence in support; (5) he has not raised those reasons in his affirmation in support of his application; (6) this is within the province of the Board and the Court has no reason from the applicant to challenge the Board’s findings.

15.There is no valid reason from the applicant to challenge the Board’s Decision or the Court’s decision.

16.In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for his appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

The applicant was unrepresented.