CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2360 of 2025
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Prajapat Manoj Kumar |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board/ |
Putative |
| |
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
Director of Immigration |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)
Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:
1. The extension of time for the application for Judicial Review be refused; and
2. The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
THE APPLICATION
1. The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 30 December 2024 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”). His application is late. His application shall not be later than 3 months from the date of the Board’s Decision[1], which expired on 30 March 2025. His application was filed on 21 October 2025, which is late for more than 6 months. This issue will be dealt with below.
2. The applicant asked for a hearing and he appeared before the Court on 5 January 2026.
The applicant
3. The applicant is a national of India. He is an illegal immigrant. He lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by his brother over a land dispute. He had threatened to kill the applicant.
4. Details of the applicant’s story can be found in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2025/HCAL002360_2025_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf
The Director’s Decision
5. The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:
a. risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);
b. risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);
c. risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and
d. risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk””).
6. The Director, by Notice of Decision dated 16 October 2024 (“the Director’s Decision”), refused the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.
The Board’s Decision
7. The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 13 December 2024, the Board conducted an oral hearing. He had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions.
8. Having considered the evidence and materials, the Board made the findings below.
(1) His allegations were not supported by evidence, which consisted of discrepancies and contradictions. [38] Also, he could give only bare, vague and hollow assertions. [42]
(2) The Board did not accept his evidence or that he would be subjected to any of the applicable risks if he returns to India. [53]
(3) State protection will be available to him. [63]
(4) Internal relocation is viable. [64]-[69]
9. For the reasons above, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.
Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision
10. The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 21 October 2025 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
11. The applicant has raised the grounds below in support of his application.
(1) The Board’s assessment was unreasonable and unfair.
(2) The Board had relied too much on the country of origin information without due consideration of his background and personal experience.
(3) The Board demanded him to answer questions that he was not in a position to offer any response.
DISCUSSION
12. As mentioned in paragraph 1, this application is late. In AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015, §27 the Court of Appeal held that for extension of time for making the application for leave to apply for judicial review, the Court has to consider (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 the applicant’s case.
13. The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, the applicant said he had paid a lawyer to explain the Board’s Decision to him. He said he was telling the truth before the Board.
14. In Re: Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:
“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director). The court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.”
15. The applicant’s grounds under paragraph 11 are bare assertions or his opinions without any evidence in support. They are not valid to challenge the Board’s Decision[2]. There is no reason for this Court to interfere with the Board’s Decision.
16. In the circumstances, the applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
DISPOSITION
17. I refuse to extend time for the applicant to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.
Dated the 11th day of February 2026
| |
(Allen LEE)
for Registrar, High Court
|
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
Notes for the Applicant:
If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
|
|
|
|
|
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A);
b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and
c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).
|
|
Sent to the Applicant
on 11/2/2026
Prajapat Manoj Kumar
Applicant’s ref. no:
Nil. |
|
Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 11/2/2026
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 24823
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
INCL 1907-24(8) (CZ)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
[1] Delay in applying for relief (O. 53, r. 4)
(1) An application for leave to apply for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when grounds for the application first arose unless the Court considers that there is good reason for extending the period within which the application shall be made. (L.N. 356 of 1988)
(2) Where the relief sought is an order of certiorari in respect of any judgment, order, conviction or other proceeding, the date when grounds for the application first arose shall be taken to be the date of that judgment, order, conviction or proceeding.
[2] The Court of Appeal in Salim Ahmed alias MD Salim [2020] HKCA 244 held:
“20. … … general assertions or propositions of law cannot assist an appellant when he fails to condescend to the requisite particulars related to the facts of his case: Re Mizan Sikder [2019] HKCA 20 and Ibrahim v Simon Russell [2019] HKCA 1327.” See also Re Haider Khalil [2021] HKCA 223 [16].”