KARIM ABDUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

KARIM ABDUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

The application for leave was dismissed because the Form 86 pleaded generic, unparticularised grounds that did not disclose any reasonably arguable case; the application was over eight months out of time and the Applicant failed to show good reason to extend time (including failure to update address and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 1350
Parties
Applicant: Karim Abdul; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 April 2026
Case Number
HCAL1530/2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (dismissed)
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Form 86 amended to name only the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office as Putative Respondent
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture and Article 3 BORA, Risk of Persecution, Delay and Extension of Time, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review (leave Stage), Late Filing of Appeal
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture and Article 3 BORA Risk of Persecution Delay and Extension of Time +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 34 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karim Abdul

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was good reason to extend time for applying for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether the TCAB/NRCPO breached procedural fairness in refusing the late filing application
  3. 3 Whether the Form 86 and grounds disclosed a reasonably arguable case with a realistic prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave was dismissed because the Form 86 pleaded generic, unparticularised grounds that did not disclose any reasonably arguable case; the application was over eight months out of time and the Applicant failed to show good reason to extend time (including failure to update address and non‑compliance with disclosure duties); and there was no public law basis to vitiate the TCAB/NRCPO's lawful refusal to allow late filing under s.37ZT. The court amended the Form 86 on its own motion to name only the TCAB/NRCPO as Putative Respondent.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; Form 86 amended to name only the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office as Putative Respondent

Orders

  • Form 86 be amended on the Court's own motion to name only the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office as the Putative Respondent
  • The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed