RAVINDER KUMAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1083/2021

[2026] HKCFI 3241

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1083 of 2021

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

1.   The Form 86 be amended to name the Director of Immigration as a putative interested party as opposed to a putative respondent;

2.   Extension of time to file Form 86 be refused;

3.   The application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

1.   By a Form 86 filed on 29 July 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 21 October 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”), which was made after a hearing on 25 March 2020 of a petition/appeal from the first tier decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 12 November 2018.  A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1]. 

2.   This application was out of time; delay alone would have caused me to dismiss this application.  In the oral hearing before this Court, the Applicant explained that he was taken into custody by a law enforcement agency from June to November 2020 and thus he did not receive a copy of the Board’s Decision in a timely manner.  He said he was only informed of the Board’s Decision when he later reported to the DI to continue his recognizance.  He has not supplied to this Court any document or evidence showing the period of his incarceration and when he reported to the DI.  Orally he also said he could not recall the exact date he was informed of the Board’s Decision.  As the Applicant himself said he was released soon after the date of the Board’s Decision (around 1 month), I am unable to accept a reasonable explanation for the delay has been made out.

3.   That said, I would also, in line with the case authorities’ requirement, consider the merits of the application in deciding whether extension of time should be granted.

4.  The Applicant is an Indian national.  His non-refoulement claim was based on the risk of harm from the family of a female he had a relationship with.  The female’s father was allegedly affiliated with a political party.  After an oral hearing, the Board came to the view that the Applicant’s claim was not credible due to his inconsistent evidence about the female’s family members.  The past treatment was assessed to be not meeting minimum level of severity, and there was insufficient evidence to reflect a real and substantial risk of ill-treatment should he return to India.  Available State protection and internal relocation alternative were also found.    

5.  The Applicant has not set out any grounds of judicial review in the Form 86 or supporting affirmation against the Board’s Decision.  He just stated that he would be still in danger.  In the oral hearing before this Court, the Applicant said he did not want to say anything on his substantive challenge against the Board’s Decision.  

6.  I have considered the Board’s Decision vigorously.  I am unable to detect any reasonable argument that the Board’s Decision was vitiated by public law errors.  I therefore refuse to grant extension of time to file the Form 86 and accordingly dismiss this leave application.

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Form CALL-1