HOSSAIN ZAMA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]
HTML content
HCAL 1102/2025
[2025] HKCFI 5000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1102 of 2025
BETWEEN | ||
| Hossain Zama | Applicant | |
| and | ||
| Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office | Putative 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 documents and Applicant being absent in open court; |
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:
Application for Leave to apply for Judicial Review be struck out.
Observations for the Applicant:
THE APPLICATION
1. The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision dated 7 January 2025 (“the Director’s Decision”) is struck out for reasons below:
a. The Court had made enquiry with the applicant, who confirmed that he had not appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”).
b. The applicant should have taken the Director Decision to the Board before making judicial review application to the High Court. The fact that he had not appealed the Director’s Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board and took out this application is an abuse of the administrative structure of the judicial process, as held by the Court of Appeal in Re: Moshsin Ali[2018] HKCA 549, Hon Lam VP and McWalters JA, 24 August 2018
“45. … the decision by the board will supersede the decision of the immigration officer and will represent the final decision on the claim at the end of its processing. … the decision of the immigration officer is not a decision that, within this administrative structure, is susceptible to judicial review once an appeal to the board is pursued by a claimant.”
2. Accordingly, this application is struck out.
Dated the 4th day of November 2025
| (M.O. WONG)(Ms) 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 4/11/2025 Hossain Zama 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 4/11/2025 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: - Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1727/24 (formerly RBCZ 5001370/24) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1