SHERPA RENJAL v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 1050/2025, [2026] HKCA 1499

On appeal from [2025] HKCFI 5170

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 1050 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 855 OF 2020)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

The Court:

1.  This is the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) YW Hew (“the Judge”) dated 6 November 2025 (“the Order”) refusing to extend time for the Applicant to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 2 February 2016 (“the Board’s Decision”) whereby the Board noted the Applicant’s decision to withdraw his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 30 April 2015 (“the Director’s Decision”) and dismissed his appeal on the ground that his contemplated risks no longer existed.

2.  The Applicant is a national of India.  He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on the basis that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by local gangsters who were supporters of the Gorkha National Liberation Front (“GNLF”) in his village due to a money dispute and he would be boycotted by the society in his area for failing to repay the Municipal Corporation by order of the Village Council.  The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director, and his appeal against it was subsequently withdrawn by him, which was recorded in the Board’s Decision.  Details of the Applicant’s claim, the procedural history and the Board’s Decision can be found in the Form CALL-1 dated 6 November 2025 (“the Form CALL-1”).

3.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review against the Board’s Decision was only made more than 4 years later on 8 May 2020.  On the ground of undue delay, and after considering all relevant factors as required by law, the Judge refused to grant an extension of time and dismissed it for the reasons set out in the Form CALL-1.

4.  By a Notice of Appeal filed on 18 November 2025, the Applicant sought to appeal the Judge’s decision to this court essentially on the grounds that (1) he challenges the Judge’s decision on the basis of procedural impropriety, errors of law, irrationality, and failure to consider relevant circumstances in assessing his non-refoulement claim, (2) he did not have any legal assistance at any stage of the proceedings, (3) the Judge wrongly treated his letter to withdraw his appeal dated 28 January 2016 as a fully informed and final decision, (4) the Judge placed excessive emphasis on procedural technicalities such as delay, and his withdrawal letter, and (5) the Judge did not consider or evaluate the ongoing risks he faces in his home country.

5.  The Applicant lodged his skeleton submissions on 10 July 2026.  He repeated the background of his withdrawal of the appeal before the Board and essentially argued that :-

a.  The Judge erred “in principle” for treating his withdrawal letter as final and conclusive, even though he has communicated his wish to re-open his appeal by letter dated 16 February 2016 to the Board shortly after the Board’s Decision;

b.  The Judge erred in refusing to extend time for his late application for leave to appeal for judicial review.

6.  The appeal was heard on 18 August 2026.  The Applicant attended the hearing in person with the assistance of a Nepali interpreter.  He told us that he was married to a Hong Kong permanent resident.

7.  In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant.  If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed.  The Court of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6)).

8.  As to the Applicant’s reliance on his lack of legal assistance,  it has been repeatedly emphasised by the Court of Appeal that as a matter of law, a non-refoulement claimant is not entitled to free legal representation at all stages of the process: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at [18]; Re Zahid Abbas [2018] HKCA 15 at [11] and Re Tariq Farhan [2018] HKCA 17 at [11].

9.  Despite the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal and skeleton submissions, we do not see any errors committed by the Judge in refusing to grant an extension of time.

10.  In our view, none of the Applicant’s grounds of appeal constitute any viable grounds of appeal and lack substance.  We see no basis to interfere with the Judge’s decision. 

11.  For the above reasons, the Applicant’s appeal is devoid of merits.  We dismiss it accordingly.