SOMHATAI DANKRATHOK v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 340/2026

[2026] HKCFI 3968

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 340 of 2026

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

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

Following:

	consideration of the documents only;            or
	consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

1.  There shall be no extension of time for the applicant to file the application for leave to apply for judicial review out of time.

2.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

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 6 February 2026, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 15 December 2023 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against a decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 11 September 2023 rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds[1] . The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlink: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2026/HCAL000340_2026_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.  The basis of the applicant’s claim was that, if refouled to Thailand, she would be harmed or killed by her husband for having refused to convert to Islam, which made him feel a loss of face. 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.

3.  At the applicant’s request for a hearing of the Leave Application, this court scheduled a hearing on 19 May 2026. The applicant attended the hearing in person, and asked for more time to be allowed to stay in Hong Kong as she had a new relationship in Hong Kong.

Discussion

4.  A leave application operates as a ‘filtering’ process. Hence, there is no requirement or expectation to give elaborate reasons for my decision.[2] It is therefore sufficient to state my observations after considering the Board’s Decision and the applicant’s materials adduced.

5.  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. The Form 86 and the supporting affirmation provided no such grounds.

6.  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 the applicant was a witness of truth, and accepted her account of events. The Board however found that the likelihood of the applicant facing future risk of harm was low as the applicant had no contact with her husband for some time and that he had moved out from the family home. Should any risks of domestic violence arise, the Board found that there would be reasonable state protection and viability of internal relocation. These are findings of fact, which the court in a judicial review will not interfere with, subject to there being any public law errors.

7.  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 advanced no grounds at all in support of the Leave Application, and has not shown any errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. I find that 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].

Whether to extend time for the late application

8.  Another matter I need to consider is the delay. Pursuant to O 53 r 4(1) of the Rules of the High Court, an application to apply for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within 3 months from the date of the Board’s Decision. The Leave Application was late for about 2 years.

9.  When this court asked the applicant for the reason for the delay, the applicant stated that she only learnt about the delay after she was detained on 15 November 2025. She then immediately filed the Leave Application.

10.  I do not accept the applicant had provided good reason for the delay. Firstly, her ignorance of the time limit is not a good reason. Neither is she able to satisfy the court that she had taken prompt action. She only filed the Leave Application more than 3 months after her detention. Hence, I reject her explanation for the delay.

11.  Having regard to the lengthy delay, and most importantly, the lack of good prospects of success of the intended challenge, I refuse to exercise my discretion to grant the applicant an extension of the time to file the Leave Application out of time.

Orders

12.  There shall be no extension of time for the applicant to file the application for leave to apply for judicial review out of time.

13.  The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review be dismissed.

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