Ali Muhammad Faiz v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1792/2025

[2026] HKCFI 4854

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1792 of 2025

BETWEEN

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

	consideration of documents only:          or
	consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court;

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 applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 15 November 2024 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 15 February 2025. His application was filed on 13 August 2025, which is late for more than five and a half months. This issue will be dealt with below.

2.The applicant did not ask for a hearing.

3.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

4.The applicant is a national of Pakistan. 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 neighbours because of a grudge between his uncle and his uncle’s neighbour.

5.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/HCAL001792_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf.

The Director’s Decision

6.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”).

7.By Notice of Decision dated 12 September 2024 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director refused the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

8.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. The Board fixed a date of 4 November 2024 for the hearing. On the hearing day, the staff of the Board called the applicant by phone. He confirmed he was on his way. However, he was absent. The Board checked with Director and confirmed his address. It fixed another date of 8 November 2024 for the hearing. Again, he was absent at the hearing. The Board therefore proceeded to consider his appeal in his absence, relying on the evidence before it.

9.Having considered the evidence before it and the country-of-origin information, the Board found that the applicant’s allegation that his neighbours would still harbour grudges upon him is suspicious as the incident took place 20 years ago [43]. The Board therefore found that his risk is low and remote. Also, state protection is available and internal relocation is viable if he returns to Pakistan. [52], [58] & [78]

10.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

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

12.The applicant said in his affirmation that he is not satisfied with the Board’s Decision and his life will be in danger if he returns to Pakistan.

DISCUSSION

13.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.

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

15.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.”

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

17.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

18.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 9^th day of September 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