Case Detail

AHMED JUNAID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Related cases with same parties

CACV100/2026SINGH NARINDER PAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV10/2022ROBILLOS ADOLFO DE LA CRUZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2021LUU THI VAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2023ALMAS KHAWAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2025COLLINS OBI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV104/2019DHALI JONY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV104/2023VU THI NGOC MY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV105/2021DINH THI VAN 對 TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITON OFFICE
CACV107/2023NGUYEN THI THUY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV107/2025AHMAD AQEEL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1081/2025HOANG VAN BINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV110/2021AYUB MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV11/2023RUPASINGHA ARACHCHIGE SHIROMA THARANGANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV112/2025NONG THI HA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV113/2022SITI MULDIYATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1151/2025ARSHDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2022GALLEGO VALDES AUGUSTO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2024QUIRANTE JACKIELON DE GUZMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2025DINH KHAC KIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1153/2025MEGA PUSPITA SARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Files (2)

[2025] HKCFI 5869-EN-2025-12-05

AHMED JUNAID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HTML content

HCAL 407/2020

[2025] HKCFI 5869

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 407 OF 2020

_____________

BETWEEN
	Ahmed Junaid	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested Party

_____________

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge Levy in Chambers (Open to the Public)

Date of Hearing:	27 November 2025
Date of Decision:	5 December 2025

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1. By a summons dated 25 September 2025, the applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the order dated 30 July 2025, dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review against the Torture Claims Appeal Board.

2. The hearing for the summons was fixed to be heard on 27 November 2025. Before the hearing, the court had sent to the applicant by ordinary post to his last known address with a notice of hearing dated 31 October 2025 with a reminder of the consequence of absence[1]. The notice of hearing was returned on 21 November 2025. As a result, my clerk immediately telephoned applicant on 21 November 2025 and he was able to speak to him. He was reminded of the hearing on 27 November 2025. The applicant did not turn up at the hearing. A telephone call was made to the applicant’s given telephone number on the day of the hearing, the applicant said he was still home. He did not indicate that he wanted to come to the hearing.

3. In the circumstances, this court will dispose of the summons according to the materials already placed before the court.

The law

4. Pursuant to O 53 r 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, the time limit for an appeal to the Court of Appeal is 14 days (after the order of the court). The deadline for the applicant to file his appeal would have been 13 August 2025. The applicant is therefore more than 1 month’s late.

5. The guidelines governing the discretion for an extension of time to appeal against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review therefore apply. A Court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the prospect of success of the intended appeal; and (iv) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted: see Re MK HCMP 2609/2016, 10 January 2017; Chu On Fong Winter v The Appeal Panel (Housing) HCMP 982/2017, 20 July 2017; Islam Raja Rais v Director of Immigration HCMP 881/2017, 26 June 2017; Re Gurang Min Bahadur[2018] HKCA 226; Re Saqlain Muhammad[2018] HKCA 346; and Nguyen Thi Hong Thuy[2024] HKCA 1172.

Discussion

6. Whilst it is accepted that the delay in the present case is not substantial, I do not regard the delay as a mere inadvertence or an oversight. In such a case, a good explanation is required. Apart from stating in his affirmation in support of the summons that he was late because he did not receive any judgment or letter from the court, the applicant did not provide any other reasons to explain for the delay. Neither has he advanced any grounds of appeal in support of the summons.

7. At the hearing of the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review on 27 May 2025, the applicant appeared in person. Before the hearing, through the assistance of the interpreter, the applicant signed to confirm his updated address (“Confirmed Address”). The Order together with the Decision of this court were sent to the Confirmed Address. On 18 August 2025, the court received the returned post of the Order and the Decision that were sent to the Confirmed Address. In the summons, the applicant provided a different address to the Confirmed Address.

8. Whilst it was accepted that the applicant might not have received the Order and the Decision of the court, I do not find that it provides a good reason for the delay. The applicant has the responsibility to notify the court any change of address. He cannot take advance of his own default. The applicant has not advanced any grounds in support of the intended appeal.

9. In the absence of good reason to explain for the delay and any proposed grounds for his intended appeal, I am not satisfied that there is a good prospect of success in his intended appeal.

10. For the reasons stated above, this court is disinclined to exercise its discretion to grant any extension of time to him to appeal, and accordingly dismiss his summons.

(Katina Levy)
Deputy High Court Judge

The applicant was unrepresented and did not appear

[1] “If the Applicant does not appear at the hearing, he/she will be deemed to have waived his/her right to make oral submissions at the hearing and the Court will deal with his/her application according to the paper already placed before the Court”.

HCAL 407/2020

[2025] HKCFI 3160

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 407 of 2020

BETWEEN
	Ahmed Junaid	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 oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court JudgeLevy:

1. The Form 86 is amended on the court’s own motion.
2. The applicant’s application for leave to issue the judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1. By prescribed Form 86 filed on 13 March 2020, 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 8 January 2020 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against a decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 15 November 2017 (“Director’s Decision”) rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds. The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlink: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL000407_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

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

3. The basis of the applicant’s claim was that he would be harmed or killed by his paternal uncle and his uncle’s son due to a land dispute. 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.

4. At the applicant’s request for a hearing of the Leave Application, this court scheduled a hearing on 27 May 2025. The applicant attended the hearing in person. After having heard from him, this court informed him that the decision would be reserved, and be sent to his updated address.

Discussion

5. The Leave Application operates as a ‘filtering’ process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision.[1] It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the Board’s Decision and the applicant’s materials adduced.

6. In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly[2], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit.

7. In his Form 86 and supporting affirmation, the applicant did not raise any grounds for judicial review.

8. At the hearing, this court asked the applicant whether he had any grounds he wished to submit in support of the Leave Application. The applicant said he had nothing to say despite the court’s reminder that he has not provided any grounds in his papers.

9. 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.[3] In the present case, the Board found that the applicant’s injuries did not attain the minimum level of severity, and he did not suffer any serious harm or injury. The Board thus found that there was no real risk of harm. The Board also found that internal relocation would be viable. These are findings of fact, which the court in a judicial review will not interfere with, subject to there being any public law errors.

10. 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 in the Decisions of the Director and the Board. The applicant has not shown any errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. The applicant had provided no grounds at all in support of the Leave Application whether on papers or otherwise. 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[4].

Orders

11. The Form 86 is amended on the court’s own motion.

12. The applicant’s application for leave to issue the judicial review be dismissed.

Dated the 30^th day of July 2025

(Alfred Chan)
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 30/7/2025 Ahmed Junaid 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 30/7/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 9255/17/11/266/P1818 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 2718/17 (Formerly RBCZ 10913/16) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

[1] Re Zunartyah[2018] HKCA 14 at [23].

[2] Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection, HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016 at [142].

[3] Re Lakhwinder Singh[2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh[2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara[2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration[2018] HKCA 524.

[4] Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676

	consideration of the documents only; or
	consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;