Mahmood Tariq v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

Case No.HCAL 1103/2021[2026] HKCFI 269

Court

High Court CFI

Date13 Jan 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1103/2021

[2026] HKCFI 269

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1103 OF 2021

BETWEEN
	Mahmood Tariq	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board	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 oral submissions by the Applicant in open court / the Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan:

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.The Applicant is a 40-year-old national of Pakistan who in about 2015 raised a non-refoulement claim for protection to the Immigration Department, but upon being briefed by an immigration officer on 9 September 2015 with the necessary information and requirements for making his claim and was served with a Non-refoulement Claim Form (“NCF”) which he was required to complete and return within 28 days, as well as information for seeking legal representation from the Duty Lawyer Service (“DLS”) for his claim, and despite repeated reminders and extensions of time for him to do so, the Applicant failed to return his NCF as required under Section 37Y(2) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115 or at all, and by a letter dated 15 January 2016 the Director of Immigration (“Director”) gave the Applicant notice that his non-refoulement claim had accordingly been treated as withdrawn pursuant to Section 37ZG (2) of the Ordinance.

2.Some 3 months later on 12 April 2016 the Applicant in writing requested to re-open his claim, whereupon the Director by a letter dated 25 April 2016 required him to provide sufficient evidence in writing to satisfy an immigration officer that he had exercised all due diligence to return a completed NCF as required but failed to do so due to circumstances beyond his control under Section 37ZG (3) of the Ordinance.

3.In reply the Applicant on 6 May 2016 in writing explained that he had been married in Hong Kong with a daughter who was sick but his wife had to work that he was too busy taking care of his daughter to return his NCF as required, and that if he was returned to Pakistan he would be killed by his enemies that he must be allowed to re-open his claim for non-refoulement protection.

4.By a Notice of Decision dated 25 May 2016, the Director refused to allow the Applicant to re-open his claim upon finding that there was no documentary evidence in support of his alleged reason for failing to return his NCF within the period as required, that his explanation of having to take care of his sick daughter even if true was not acceptable as something or circumstance beyond his control that caused him to be unable to return his NCF with all due diligence, and that even up to then that he had still failed to produce his completed NCF for his claim.

5.The Applicant never brought any appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) against the Director’s refusal to re-open his claim under Section 37ZR (a) of the Immigration Ordinance as so advised in the decision if he was aggrieved by the Director’s refusal, but instead more than 5 years later on 6 August 2021 he filed a Form 86 in these proceedings for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s decision, and no ground for seeking relief was given in his Form or supporting affirmation of the same date to which he just attached a copy of the Director’s decision.

6.As such, and in the absence of any appeal first brought by the Applicant to the Board against the Director’s refusal to re-open his claim in pursuance of Section 37ZR (a) of the Immigration Ordinance as part of the 2-tier screening of his claim by both the Director and the Board under the Unified Screening Mechanism (“USM”) in place for the processing of all non-refoulement claims since 3 March 2014, I do not find any legal or procedural basis for him to bring his present leave application for judicial review of the Director’s decision, and accordingly dismiss his application.

Dated the 13^th day of January 2026

(Chung Lai Fan, Christine)
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 13 January 2026 Mahmood Tariq 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 13 January 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: L/M(32) to TCAB/1-20-4 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: L/M (12793) in ImmD RA 7/37/C Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Cited by 1 case

Other judgments that cite this case

Re Mahmood Tariq

Court of Appeal10 Apr 2026