L G Chanda Kumari, consideration of the documents and the being absent in open court, Notes for the : If leave has been granted, the or the ’s solicitors must, a) serve on the 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 proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5))
Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office
- Deputy High Court JudgeLevy
L G CHANDA KUMARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
[2026] HKCFI 50
|
HCAL 2279/2020 [2026] HKCFI 50 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No 2279 of 2020
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Following:
Order by Deputy High Court Judge Levy:
Observations for the Applicant: Introduction 1. By a “Notice of application for leave to apply for judicial review” in the prescribed Form 86 filed on 18 November 2020, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 4 November 2020 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 20 May 2020 (“Director’s Decision”) rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim on the applicable grounds. The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlinks: - 2. In her Form 86, the applicant named the Board and the Director as the proposed respondents and proved an address as the interested party. As the Board should have been the proper respondent and the Director the proper interested party, the Form 86 will be amended accordingly. 3. The basis of the applicant’s claim was that, if refouled to Nepal, she would be harmed or killed by her creditor for an outstanding loan. The Board’s reasoning and findings were set out in detail in the Board’s Decision and it is not necessary for me to repeat them. Unless otherwise specified, I shall also adopt the Board’s abbreviations and descriptions stated in the Board’s Decision. 4. Pursuant to the applicant’s request for a hearing of the Leave Application, this court scheduled a hearing on 16 December 2025. A notice of hearing with a reminder[1] of the consequence of absence dated 13 November 2025 was sent to the applicant’s last known address by ordinary post. The applicant was absent from the hearing. Before the hearing, phone calls were made to the applicant’s given telephone number before the hearing but to no avail. Since the information before this court shows that the said notice of hearing has not been returned undelivered through the post, and that the applicant had been separately notified by phone, this court will dispose of the Leave Application according to the materials already placed before the court. Discussion 5. The Leave Application operates as a ‘filtering’ process and there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision.[2] It is sufficient to state my observations after considering the Board’s Decision and the applicant’s materials adduced. 6. In a proper Form 86, an applicant is required to identify the grounds of judicial review clearly and succinctly[3], and further to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts to be verified by an affidavit. In the Form 86 and the supporting affirmation, the applicant provided none at all. 7. As the Courts have repeatedly stated, a finding of fact is exclusively within the realm of the Board, which a court in a judicial review will not interfere with unless such finding involved an error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality.[4] In the present case, the Board accepted that the applicant had taken out the loan and was unable to pay the principal and the interests. However, the Board found that the applicant’s evidence regarding the terms of the loan was vague and inconsistent. In any event, the Board found that there was no evidence that the applicant ever suffered any physical harm at the creditor’s hands. It rejected the applicant’s evidence regarding the attack on her children. After having considered all the evidence, the Board concluded that the applicant suffered no past harm, and therefore she would not face any future risk of harm. The Board also found that internal relocation was reasonably viable. 8. Bearing in mind the enhanced standard that should be adopted in scrutinizing the Board’s Decision, this court is satisfied that the Board correctly applied the law relating to all the grounds and observed a high standard of fairness. The applicant provided no grounds, whether written or oral, to support the Leave Application. The applicant’s intended challenge to the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success such that would enable this court to grant leave[5]. Orders 9. The Form 86 be amended on the court’s own motion. 10. The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.
Dated the 7th day of January 2026
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
[1] “If the Applicant does not appear at the hearing, he/she will be deemed to have waived his/her right to make oral submissions at the hearing and the Court will deal with his/her application according to the paper already placed before the Court”. [2] Re Zunartyah [2018] HKCA 14 at [23]. [3] Ho Loy & Another v Director of Environmental Protection, HCAL 21/2015, 22 December 2016 at [142]. [4] Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246; Re Daljit Singh [2018] HKCA 328; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 400; and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524. [5] Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||