RE MALLA SURAJ

[2025] HKCA 442 Court of Appeal 16 May 2025 • CACV222/2024 • 11 min read
6 cases cited (0 HK, 6 foreign) Cited by 1 case

Outcome

Leave to appeal granted

leave to apply for judicial review is granted, but the leave application as amended is refused.

Source: [2025] HKCA 442, Court of Appeal, decided 16 May 2025. Read directly from the judgment.

Judges (2)

Parties (1)

Case Significance

RE MALLA SURAJ [2025] HKCA 442 is a Court of Appeal decision dated 16 May 2025, arising as an immigration-related judicial review matter engaging the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (including section 8) and the Immigration Ordinance. The underlying claim traces to MALLA SURAJ V. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [2024] HKCFI 1476. The Court of Appeal held: "leave to apply for judicial review is granted, but the leave application as amended is refused." The matter was addressed again in the later RE MALLA SURAJ [2025] HKCA 1067.

Summary

Malla Suraj, a Nepalese national, applied for extension of time to appeal the refusal of leave to apply for judicial review of his non-refoulement claim. The Court of Appeal found no merit in the intended appeal and dismissed the application.

What did the Court of Appeal hold in RE MALLA SURAJ [2025] HKCA 442?

The Court of Appeal held that "leave to apply for judicial review is granted, but the leave application as amended is refused," in a decision dated 16 May 2025 concerning an immigration-related judicial review under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance and Immigration Ordinance.

What earlier decision underlies RE MALLA SURAJ [2025] HKCA 442?

The Court of Appeal's decision followed the earlier judicial review in MALLA SURAJ V. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [2024] HKCFI 1476, and the matter was subsequently revisited in RE MALLA SURAJ [2025] HKCA 1067.

Statutes Cited

Cases Cited (6)

HK (6)
[2018] HKCA 14 [2018] HKCA 15 [2018] HKCA 17 [2018] HKCA 524 [2021] HKCA 1740 [2024] HKCFI 1476

Cited By (1)

Citation influence

HKLII records this judgment as cited by 1 later judgment. This counts every later Hong Kong judgment that references this case, which is broader than the resolved citations listed above.

Related cases

Other Hong Kong judgments involving the same parties or counsel.

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Hong Kong Courts portal.

Read on HKLII

Source: HKLII ([2025] HKCA 442)