Manyali Rehani Mohamed v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 2081/2025

[2026] HKCFI 1266

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2081 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 had filed an application (HCAL 3179 of 2019) for leave to apply for judicial review of a Board’s Decision dated 11 October 2019, which predated his application dated 28 October 2019. The Court called upon the applicant for an explanation and the hearing was adjourned for him to find the Board’s Decision dated 11 October 2019 for the Court’s consideration.

2.He appeared before the Court and confirmed that he was unable to locate the said Board’s Decision. The Court therefore dismissed his application since the subject matter of his application was non-existent.

3.The applicant made another application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 29 November 2019 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 29 February 2020. His application was filed on 15 September 2025, which is late for more than five and a half years. This issue will be dealt with below.

4.The applicant did not ask for a hearing.

5.Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the proposed respondent is the Board and the Director of Immigration is the interested party.

The applicant

6.The applicant is a national of Tanzania. He is an illegal immigrant. He lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by his wife and strangers hired by her because of his religious conversion from Islam to Christianity; and a creditor, who had sold him a car for which he had not fully paid.

7.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/HCAL002081_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

The Director’s Decision

8.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”).

9.By Notice of Decision dated 19 December 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director refused the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

10.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 30 August 2019, the Board conducted an oral hearing. He had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.

11.Having considered the evidence, the Board made the findings below.

(1)   As to his credibility, the Board had taken into account that he did not seek non-refoulement in China or immediately after he arrived in Hong Kong, pursuant to section 37ZD(1)(b) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115. [26]-[28]

(2)   He admitted that the state was not involved in his fear of his wife or the creditor’s threat. [33]-[35]

(3)   There was no evidence to show that:

i.   he would face similar antagonism many years from his wife, and it is only his speculation for his fear;

ii.   he would face any problems whatsoever in Tanzania;

iii.   he had been subjected to physical suffering of the requisite severity; and

iv.   the government of Tanzania would not render protection to him. [45]

12.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

13.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 15 September 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

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

DISCUSSION

15.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, inter alia, the prospect of success of the intended application. I shall consider the merits of the applicant’s case.

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

17.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.”

18.The applicant has not raised any valid ground to challenge the Board’s findings.

19.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

20.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 11^th day of March 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