Imran Khan v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

Case No.HCAL 1260/2021[2026] HKCFI 3892

Court

High Court CFI

Date10 Jul 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1260/2021

[2026] HKCFI 3892

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1260 of 2021

BETWEEN
	Imran Khan	Applicant
	And
	Torture Claims Appeal Board	1^st Putative
		Respondent
	Director of Immigration	2^nd Putative
		Respondent

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 being absent in open court;

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

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

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 8 September 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 16 January 2017 (“the Board’s Decision”).

2.According to a copy of the Board’s Decision exhibited to the Applicant’s supporting affirmation, the Applicant originally lodged an appeal/petition with the Board (also performing the function of Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office) on 7 August 2014 against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 25 July 2014 rejecting his non-refoulement claim. On 4 January 2017, the Applicant sent a letter to the Board saying that he would like to withdraw his appeal/petition because he was safe to return to his country Pakistan. The Board’s Decision was to accept the withdrawal, dismissed the appeal/petition and confirmed the DI’s original decision accordingly.

3.Almost 4.5 years after the withdrawal of the appeal/petition and its acceptance by the Board’s Decision, the Applicant filed this Form 86. Apparently, he did not only challenge the Board’s Decision, but also DI’s original decision made in 2014 (as said in the supporting affirmation).

4.The application was seriously out of time. There was also completely no explanation as to why he withdrew the appeal/petition in the first place, got the withdrawal accepted and then sought to change his position 4.5 years after. He cannot challenge the Board’s acceptance of his withdrawal and further attempt to reinstate his withdrawn challenge against DI’s original decision by way of this judicial review. This is not permissible. The Applicant can at most go back to the Board seeking to argue that the withdrawal on 4 January 2017 was invalid (see Hussain Tasawar v Betty Kwan (Adjudicator) [2017] 2 HKLRD 567). There is nothing in the documents showing that he had done that or attempted to do that.

5.The Applicant did not attend the oral hearing of this Court fixed for this case. There are no merits in this application at all. Extension of time must be refused; the application is dismissed.

Dated the 10^th day of July 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 10^th July 2026 Imran Khan 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 10^th July 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board 1^st Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 113/14/8/28/P28 Director of Immigration 2nd Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: QA T/C 858/13 (formerly RBCZ 1882/09) (T7S69) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Hussain Tasawar v. Betty Kwan, Adjudicator (Torture Petitions) of the Petition Team of the Security Bureau

[2017] 2 HKLRD 567

High Court CFI17 Mar 2017