RAHMAN MD SHEIKH MOJIBUR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

HCAL 170/2026

[2026] HKCFI 754

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 170 OF 2026

________________________

________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

A.  Introduction

1.  By his Form 86 dated 14 January 2026, the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review so as to challenge what he describes as a decision of the ‘Immigration Department Torture Claims Appeal Board’ dated 28 October 2025.

2.  However, the document attached to his affirmation identifies a decision dated 28 October 2025 made by the Immigration Tribunal, and that it was made on the Applicant’s appeal to that Tribunal against the decision of an Assistant Director of Immigration to make a Removal Order against him.

3.  The body of his affirmation merely states that the attachment is true and “I want to stay in Hong Kong so apply for judicial review”.

4.  Having considered the materials, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to deal with this case on the papers. This is my Decision.

B.  No Merit

5.  There is no merit in the application.

6.  It is trite that an applicant for leave to apply for judicial review must set out, amongst other things, the relief sought and the grounds on which it is sought: see Rules of the High Court Order 53 rule 3(2)(a)(iii). In other words, the applicant needs to specify the form of relief sought in the application, and the public law grounds of review on which that relief is sought, and which are said to justify that relief being granted.

7.  It is also settled that, in order to obtain leave to apply for judicial review, the applicant has to identify reasonably arguable public law grounds of review with a realistic prospect of success.

8.  In this case, the Applicant has neither identified the relief sought, nor the grounds on which it is sought. Simply making the statement that he wants to stay in Hong Kong and so is applying for judicial review neither identifies proper relief nor any public law grounds of review.

9.  That is fatal to the application. It is not up to the Court to seek to identify what relief might be granted, or to identify any potential public law grounds of review. In any event, there is no suggestion that the Removal Order made against the Applicant dated 31 July 2025 was not lawfully made, nor that there is some other error in the decision on the appeal.

C.  Conclusion

10.  The Applicant having failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds of review at all, let alone any with a realistic prospect of success, the application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed. I make no order as to costs.

The applicant, acting in person