CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST N
O 1363 OF
2025
BETWEEN
Khan Md Imdad Ali
Applicant
and
Torture Claims Appeal Board
Putative Respondent
and
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party
Application for leave to apply for judicial review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Order 53, rule 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 Judge Michael WONG
:
1.
On this court’s own motion, the name of the putative respondent be amended to “Torture Claims Appeal Board”, the name of the putative interested party be amended to “Director of Immigration”, and the decision in respect of which relief is sought be amended to “Torture Claims Appeal Board’s decision dated 29 November 2024”.
2.
The applicant’s application for extension of time to file the application for leave to apply for judicial review be refused.
3.
The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Observations for the applicant:
The Leave Application
1.
By way of Form 86 dated and filed on 13 June 2025, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) in respect of two decisions, namely:-
(1) “Notice of Decission 28 may 2024”; and
(2) “Appeal Decission 29 Nov 2024”.
2.
The Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) made a decision dated 29 November 2024 (“the Board’s Decision”) in respect of the applicant’s appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 28 May 2024 (“the Director’s Decision”).
3.
It is clear that the first decision above-mentioned is the Director’s Decision, and the second decision is the Board’s Decision.
4.
Furthermore, the applicant confirmed at the oral hearing before this court on 9 September 2025 that only the Board’s Decision should be the subject of the Leave Application. The Board’s Decision can be viewed in the following hyperlink:-
5.
The Board found that the applicant’s appeal/petition failed on all the applicable grounds under the Unified Screening Mechanism (“the USM”) and confirmed the Director’s Decision, which rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.
Amendments
6.
In Form 86, the applicant named “Toucher Claim Appeal board / Nonrefoulmet Claim Pettion office, And Immigration director” as the putative respondents. However, as the applicant confirmed at the oral hearing before this court that the Leave Application is only in respect of the Board’s Decision, the putative respondent should just be the Board.
7.
Moreover, the applicant named “director of Immigration And Toucher Claim Appeal / Non-refoulement claim Pettion office” as the putative interested parties, when only t
Back
