Mohamed Rameez Bisrul Kamil v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 265/2021

[2026] HKCFI 2284

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 265 of 2021

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;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Levy:

1.  The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.

2.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.By a “Notice of application to apply for leave for judicial review” in the prescribed Form 86 filed on 2 March 2021, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 30 October 2020 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeals against the Director of Immigration (“Director”) respectively dated 6 November 2013 and 27 June 2019 (“Director’s Decisions”) rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds[1]. The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlink: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL000265_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.In the Form 86, the applicant named the Petition Teams as the proposed respondent and the Board as the interested party. As the Board should have been the proper respondent, and the Director the proper interested party, the Form 86 shall be amended accordingly on the court’s own motion.

3.The basis of the applicant’s claim was that, if refouled to Sri Lanka, he would be harmed or killed by his lover and the Sri Lankan Army as the people in his lover’s village suspected that he was a detective of the Liberation Tiger of Tamil Ealam (“LTTE”).  The Board’s reasoning and findings were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision and it is not necessary for me to repeat them. Unless otherwise specified, I shall also adopt the Board’s abbreviations and descriptions stated in the Board’s Decision.

Discussion

4.A leave application operates as a ‘filtering’ process. Hence there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision.[2] It is therefore sufficient to state my observations after considering the Board’s Decision and the applicant’s materials adduced.

5.In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly[3], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit. The Form 86 and the supporting affirmation provided no such grounds.

6.As the Courts have repeatedly stated, a finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the Board, which a court in a judicial review will not interfere with unless such finding involved an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.[4]  In the present case, the applicant’s Notices of Appeal to the Board against the Director’s Decisions were filed out of time, which were respectively late for 6 years and 5 months and 9 months. After having considered the applicant’s absence of an explanation for the delays, the Board considered that there were no special circumstances to grant extension of time to the applicant. The Board therefore rejected the applicant’s appeals pursuant to s 37ZT of the Immigration Ordinance. These are findings of fact, which the court in a judicial review will not interfere with, subject to there being any public law errors.

7.Bearing in mind the enhanced standard that should be adopted in scrutinizing the Board’s Decision, this court is satisfied that the Board correctly applied the law relating to all the grounds and observed a high standard of fairness. The applicant advanced no grounds at all in support of the Leave Application. The applicant has not shown any errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. The applicant’s intended challenge to the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success such that would enable this court to grant leave[5].

Recent removal

8.The court was recently informed that the applicant was removed.

Orders

9.The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion.

10.The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Dated the 30^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