Jamal Ahmed v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1630/2025

[2026] HKCFI 4779

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 1630 of 2025

BETWEEN

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 Levy:

1.  There shall be no extension of time to the applicant to file the Leave Application out of time.

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 for leave to apply for judicial review” in the prescribed Form 86 filed on 18 July 2025, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 1 August 2024 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 29 April 2024 rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim respectively on the applicable grounds [1] . The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlinks: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL001630_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.The basis of the applicant’s claim was that, if refouled to India, he would be harmed or killed by the business supplier and his associates after the applicant was unable to pay for the goods he had supplied.  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.

3.The court scheduled a hearing on 6 August 2026. A notice of hearing with a reminder[2] of the consequence of absence dated 10 July 2026 was sent to the applicant’s last known address by ordinary post. The applicant was absent from the hearing. Before the hearing, phone calls were made to the applicant’s given telephone number before the hearing but to no avail. Since the information before this court shows that the said notice of hearing has not been returned undelivered through the post, and that the applicant had been separately notified by phone, this court will dispose of the Leave Application according to the materials already placed before the court.

Discussion

4.A leave application operates as a ‘filtering’ process. Hence, there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision.[3] 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[4], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit. In his Form 86, the applicant averred that the Board’s Decision was procedurally improper and unfair as it was unreasonable for the Board to have placed too much reliance on the COI without having taken his personal background and experience into account. The supporting affirmation provided no 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.[5] In the present case, although the Board found that  the applicant’s evidence was basically consistent, it found that the applicant would not be subjected to risk of harm if refouled as the past ill-treatment failed to reach the requisite level of severity. The Board also found that state protection and internal relocation would be reasonably available.

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 grounds contained in the Form 86 were vague and general without particulars. The applicant has not shown any valid grounds in support of the Leave Application. 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[6].

Whether to grant extension of time

8.More importantly, there is a delay of in the filing of the Leave Application. Pursuant to O 53 r 4(1) of the Rules of the High Court, an application to apply for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within 3 months from the date of the Board’s Decision. This application is late for about 9 months, which delay is substantial. A good reason for the delay shall be required.

9.The applicant provided no explanation at all for the delay. In the absence of reason for the delay, and importantly, the lack of merits, I refuse to exercise my discretion to grant any extension of time.

Order

10.There shall be no extension of time to the applicant to file the Leave Application out of time.

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

Dated the 11^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