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

HCAL 2488/2025

[2026] HKCFI 482

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2488 of 2025

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

1.   The extension of time for the application for Judicial Review be refused; and

2.   The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 20 May 2025 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 20 August 2025.  His application was filed on 10 November 2025, which is late for more than two and a half months.  This issue will be dealt with below.

2.The applicant did not ask for a hearing.  

The applicant

3.The applicant is a national of India.  He is an illegal immigrant for the reason that he came as a visitor, but he overstayed and was arrested.  He lodged a non‑refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by his creditor because he was unable to repay his debt.

4.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/2025/HCAL002488_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

The Director’s Decision

5.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.   risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b.   risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);

c.   risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

d.   risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

6.The Director, by Notice of Decision dated 7 January 2025, (“the Director’s Decision”), refused the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

7.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board.  On 14 March 2025, the Board conducted an oral hearing.  He had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

8.Having considered the evidence and materials, the Board made the findings below.

(1)   The Board found that he was not a truthful witness and it did not accept his evidence [54]. There were numerous inconsistencies in his testimony [57].

(2)   His delay in seeking non-refoulement protection is inconsistent with his claimed case [55].

(3)   The Board therefore did not accept that he had suffered or faced any risk of threat from the moneylender.  It did not accept that he will face any real risk of harm if he returns to India [61].

(4)   Relocation is viable [71].

(5)   State protection will be available [73].

9.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

10.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 10 November 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

11.In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant did not raise any specific reason to challenge the Board’s Decision.

DISCUSSION

12.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.  I shall consider the merits of the applicant’s case.

13.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. 

14.In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:

“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director). The court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.”

15.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.

16.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

17.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 28^th day of January 2026.

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