HCAL 984/2025

[2025] HKCFI 3183

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO. 984 OF 2025

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;

1. Leave to apply for Judicial Review be refused; and

2. A Restricted Proceedings Order (RPO) be made against the applicant.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1. This is the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Director’s Decision dated 10 January 2025 (“the Director’s Decision”) refusing his claim on the applicable risks [1] , which had been determined in his previous application under HCAL 918 of 2019 (“the previous claim”).

2. The Court, upon its own motion, has called upon the applicant to appear before it to show cause why the Court should not make a restricted proceedings order (“RPO”) against him since there is evidence to show that if unrestricted, the applicant may take out further proceedings to assert his non-refoulement claim on the same facts of the case, thereby abusing the legal process.

3. The applicant was absent at the hearing on 11 June 2025. He is deemed to abandon his right to make submissions to the Court why the RPO should not be imposed on him.

The procedural history

4. The applicant, aged, is a national of Pakistan. He entered Hong Kong illegally on 12 December 2015 and was arrested on the same date. On 15 December 2015, he lodged a non-refoulement claim. His claim was made on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his uncle Fareed Khan (“Fareed”) because of a land dispute.

5. The Director dismissed his claim for the reason that it was not substantiated. He appealed to Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”). The Board found that his claim was unfounded and dismissed his appeal.

6. His application for leave for judicial review of the Board’s Decision was dismissed by the Court of the First Instance on 4 April 2022. His application for appeal was out of time and the Court of First Instance refused to extend time for him to file his notice of appeal.

7. His appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Court of First Instance’s decision was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

8. He issued a Notice of Motion for appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed his application.

9. He applied to the Court of Final Appeal for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision and the Court of Final Appeal dismissed his application on 4 October 2024.

10. By letter dated 10 January 2025, the applicant applied to the Director for making a subsequent claim for non-refoulement protection. By the Director’s Decis