Case Detail

ALI MAMOON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

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)

[2026] HKCFI 2130-EN-2026-04-24

ALI MAMOON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HTML content

HCAL 523/2021

[2026] HKCFI 2130

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 523 OF 2021

_____________

BETWEEN
	Ali Mamoon	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 (Non-Refoulement Claims) Jeffrey Chau in Chambers (Open to Public)

Date of Hearing:	4 March 2026
Date of Decision:	24 April 2026

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

Introduction

1. The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 18 March 2019, he initiated his claim for non-refoulement protection. In gist, he feared the he will be harmed or even killed by his political opponents, including his own relatives who had taken possession of his home after his parents died, if he were to be refouled. The claim was assessed by the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) on all applicable grounds. By a decision dated 18 April 2019, the DOI dismissed his claim.

2. The Applicant subsequently challenged the decision before the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “TCAB”). By the decision dated 7 April 2021 (the “TCAB Decision”), the TCAB dismissed his petition.

3. By a Form 86 filed on 14 April 2021 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the TCAB Decision. By a decision dated 19 December 2025 [2025] HKCFI 5957 (the “Court Decision”), the court dismissed the application on the ground that the intended judicial review against the TCAB Decision is not reasonably arguable. Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, the Applicant had 14 days to appeal the Court Decision had he wished to do so. That period had expired.

4. By the Summons filed on 14 January 2026, the Applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal against the Court Decision (the “Application”). The Applicant requested for a hearing and attended the same.

5. The Application was heard before me on 4 March 2026. When asked the reason for his delay, he said that he only received the letter 10 to 11 days prior to the hearing, and that he did not check the mailbox earlier. When asked if he had anything to add, he said he had nothing.

Discussion

6. Under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, where an application for leave to judicial review is refused by a judge, the applicant may appeal against the judge’s order within 14 days after such order.

7. In considering whether to grant an extension of time, the court will take into consideration of: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of success in the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if the extension of time was granted: Re Mijares Jero Oliveros[2025] HKCA 744 at [12]; Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike[2019] HKCA 702 at [18]; Re Rahman Wasif[2019] HKCA 299 at [13]. In particular, the prospect of success of the intended appeal is of crucial consideration: Re Kpamou Gbotoi Bernard[2019] HKCA 168 at [15]; Re Irshad Muhammad[2018] HKCA 864 at [16].

8. There was a delay in the Application by a few days in the present case.

9. In his supporting affirmation, he explained the reasons for his delay. He states “…Unfortunately I have no received letter on time that’s why I am apply extension of time…” I have also considered the Applicant’s oral evidence. I do not consider this explanation for delay satisfactory. The Court Decision was duly handed down and the reason for delay was, as the Applicant admits, due to his failure of checking his mailbox late. However, as the delay was relatively short, I am prepared to grant indulgence to extend time if there is merit in the Applicant’s intended appeal.

10. The Applicant did not state any grounds for his intended appeal in his summons and supporting affirmation. At the hearing, he also did not advance any ground for the intended appeal. Further, as stated in the Court Decision, there was no merit in the application for leave to apply for judicial review. The Applicant did not put forward any valid grounds of review. Now, he has not identified any intended grounds of appeal. I am not satisfied that there are merits to the present Application.

11. Given the above, I do not consider it necessary to discuss any potential prejudice caused to the putative respondent.

12. All in all, there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay, and more importantly, no prospect of success in the intended appeal. Accordingly, I refuse to extend time and the Application is dismissed.

(Jeffrey Chau)
Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims)

The applicant was unrepresented and appeared in person

HCAL 523/2021

[2025] HKCFI 5957

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 523 of 2021

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

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Jeffrey Chau:

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

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1. By a Form 86 dated 14 April 2021 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 7 April 2021 (the “TCAB Decision”), which affirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) dated 18 April 2019.

2. The Applicant requested for a hearing of this application and he attended the same. When asked, he said that he did not have anything to add.

Background

3. The Applicant claims no right of abode in any other country other than Pakistan. In gist, he fears being harmed or even killed in Pakistan by his political opponents, including his own relatives who had taken possession of his home after his parents died. The Applicant’s personal background, the relevant facts and relevant procedural history have been sufficiently set out in the TCAB Decision, which can be viewed through a hyperlink[1]. I shall therefore not repeat them. Unless otherwise specified, TCAB’s abbreviations and descriptions are adopted herein.

Discussion

4. The leave application operates as a filtering process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision: Re Zunariyah[2018] HKCA 14 at [23]. It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the TCAB Decision and the materials adduced by the Applicant.

5. I remind myself that in a judicial review, this court does not provide a further avenue of appeal. While I also remind myself that in non-refoulement cases, I would adopt an enhanced standard in scrutinizing the decision of the TCAB given the seriousness of the issue at hand, this court would not usurp the role of the TCAB, which together with the DOI are the primary decision-makers. A finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the TCAB, and this 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 TCAB: Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration[2018] HKCA 524 at [14(1)]. There must be a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success before leave for judicial review will be granted: Peter Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676.

6. In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly: Ho Loy v Director of Environmental Protection (unreported, HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016) at [142], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit.

7. The Applicant did not state any grounds on which the relief is sought, and hence did not point to any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality of the TCAB Decision in the Form 86.

8. As can be seen from the TCAB Decision, the TCAB took into account all the evidence available and found that on the basis of the same, applying the correct legal principles in respect of all applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism, the Applicant’s allegations were insufficient to make out any of the applicable grounds [90-94]. In particular, the TCAB had a number of credibility concerns about the central parts of the Applicant’s claims, and concluded that certain aspects of the Applicant’s account was either untrue or had been exaggerated [71-78]. Thus, the TCAB was not satisfied that he faces any real or substantial risk of being subjected to serious or significant harm if he returns to Pakistan in the reasonably foreseeable future [79-88]. The TCAB further found that it would not be unduly harsh to expect the Applicant to relocate to other parts of Pakistan [89].

9. All in all, I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the TCAB Decision, despite rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. The Applicant’s intended challenge to the TCAB Decision is not reasonably arguable, and accordingly the application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.

Dated the 19^th day of December 2025

(Edison Ho)
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 19/12/2025 Ali Mamoon 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 19/12/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 15847/19/4/105/P3140 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 131/19 (Formerly RBCZ 10063/19) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

[1] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL000523_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

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