BabelCite

Hussain Chaudhry Faisal Alias Ch Faisal Hussain Alias Hussain Chaudhry v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 1150/2021[2026] HKCFI 2512
Court
High Court CFI
Date08 May 2026
Judge—
Case Document
100%

HCAL 1150/2021

[2026] HKCFI 2512

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1150 of 2021

BETWEEN
  Hussain Chaudhry Faisal alias CH Faisal Hussain alias
Hussain Chaudhry		 Applicant
  and  
  Torture Claims Appeal Board / Putative
  Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office 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 the Applicant’s submissions in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:

1.  Extension of time to file Form 86 be refused;

2.  The Applicant’s surname in the Form 86 be amended from “Chaudhary” to Chaudhry” on the Court’s own motion;

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 16 August 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 23 February 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”), which was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from a decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 24 July 2017. A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1]. Comparing (a) the name of the Applicant stated in the Form 86 with (b) the name of the appellant/petitioner in a copy of the Board’s Decision and (c) the name of the Applicant in the Recognizance issued by the DI, it seems there was a typo of the Applicant’s surname in the Form 86. On my own motion, the name is amended as per paragraph 2 of my order above.

2.This application was seriously out of time; delay alone would have caused me to dismiss this application. I would however also consider the merits of the application in deciding whether extension of time should be granted.

3.The Applicant is a Pakistani national. His non-refoulement claim was based on a risk of harm from the family of a female he had dated, which was allegedly connected to a political party called PML(N). The Applicant himself was said to be a supporter of PPP, a rival political party.

4.After an oral hearing, the Board came to the view that the Applicant’s claim was not credible due to his inconsistent evidence and non-persuasive explanations.

5.The Applicant has not set out any grounds of judicial review in the Form 86 or supporting affirmation against the Board’s Decision. In the oral hearing before this Court, the Applicant only explained he had been imprisoned for a period of time after the Board’s Decision and was hence late in filing this leave application. He did not give any argument whether and why the Board had committed any public law error.

6.I have considered the Board’s Decision vigorously. I am unable to detect any reasonable argument that the Board’s Decision was vitiated by public law errors. I therefore refuse to grant extension of time to file the Form 86 and accordingly dismiss this leave application.

Dated the 8th day of May 2026

  (Wilinda YIU)
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 8/5/2026

Hussain Chaudhry Faisal alias CH Faisal Hussain alias Hussain Chaudhry

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 8/5/2026

Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 8033/17/8/71/P1575

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 1324/17 (Formerly RBCZ 10783/17)

Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)


Form CALL-1