Ali Farhat v. Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1512/2021

[2026] HKCFI 1613

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1512 of 2021

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 (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:

1.   The Form 86 be amended to name the Board as the putative respondent, the Director of Immigration as putative interested party and the Board’s decision dated 28 July 2021 to be the decision sought to be reviewed;

2.   Extension of time to file the Form 86 be refused; and

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 2 November 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“TCAB”) and the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 28 July 2021.  According to a copy of the decision attached to his supporting affirmation (“the Board’s Decision”), the decision sought to be reviewed dated 28 July 2021 was actually made by the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) pursuant to a petition/appeal from the DI’s decision dated 25 October 2018.  The Applicant’s torture risk was separately assessed by the DI in 2013 with no appeal therefrom.  A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1]. On my own motion, I amend the Form 86 under paragraph 1 of the above orders.

2.According to the Board’s Decision, the non-refoulement claim of the Applicant, a Pakistani, was based on a dispute between him and his girlfriend’s family members opposing to their marriage. Physical violence was alleged.  It was also said some of those family members were connected to a political party of Pakistan.  After an oral hearing, the Board came to the finding that the Applicant’s factual account was not credible as it was internally inconsistent on a number of important aspects.  The Board found no real risk of ill-treatment under the applicable grounds, and dismissed the Applicant’s appeal/petition against DI’s first tier decision

3.The Applicant has not set out any grounds of judicial review in the Form 86 or supporting affirmation.  I have considered the Board’s Decision vigorously, but am unable to detect any reasonable argument that the decision was tainted by any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.  In my view, the Board has conducted an anxious scrutiny of the facts of the case and assessed intensely its factual issues.

4.I also note that the Form 86 was filed more than 3 months after the date of the Board’s Decision, even though the delay was not substantial.  That said, owing to the lack of merits against the Board’s Decision and explanation for the delay, I refuse to extend time.  This application for leave to apply for judicial review is accordingly dismissed.

Dated the 8^th day of April 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