HARSHA BAHADUR THAPA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1140/2019

[2026] HKCFI 863

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1140 OF 2019

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

The application

1.  The applicant is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission and he lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director rejected his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). Having considered his evidence, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

2.  Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the applicant filed Form No. 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.  By Form CALL-1 dated 5 September 2023 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that there is no realistic prospect of success in his intended application.

4.  The Court’s decision was sent to the applicant on 5 September 2023 at his last known address without being returned from the Post Office. He is deemed to receive the Court’s decision[1].

5.  The time for filing the notice of appeal expired on 19 September 2023[2].

6.  By summons filed on 12 January 2026, the applicant applied for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time. He is late for more than 2 years.

7.  In his affirmation support of his application, the applicant said that the Board’s Decision was Wednesbury unreasonable and without sufficient reasons. He considered that domestic violence should be the reason for non-refoulement protection. However, in his non-refoulement claim, he said that his enemies were political enemies.

Discussion

8.  Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A and Order 53, rule 3(3) of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reason, I decide to determine this application on paper without an oral hearing[3].

9.  The Court will consider the factors as set out in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam [2016] 2 HKC 393 at para. 27(3) in considering if extension of time should be extended: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted. I shall consider the merits of his case.

10.  In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, the Court of Appeal held:

“19. The prospect of success of the intended appeal is important: the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued, see Re Rahman Wasif [2019] HKCA 299 at [13]; Re Kpamou Gbotoi Bernard [2019] HKCA 168; and Re Irshad Muhammad [2018] HKCA 864 at [16].”

11.  The applicant claimed that if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by his political enemies.

12.  The Director rejected his claim because it was not substantiated. He appealed to the Board.

13.  Having considered the evidence, the Board dismissed his appeal for the reason that his political enemies were no longer killing political opponents in his country.

14.  It is a protracted delay and the applicant has not given any reasons for this long delay. Those reasons under paragraph 7 are not valid for his delay.

15.  There is no valid reason from the applicant to challenge the Board’s Decision or the Court’s decision.

16.  In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for his appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.