Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1116/2021

[2026] HKCFI 171

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1116 of 2021

BETWEEN
	Thakur Shisir Chandra	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative 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:

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

Order by Deputy High Court Judge (Non-Refoulement Claims) Lewis Law:

1. Extension of time to file the Form 86 be refused;

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 9 August 2021 (“Form 86”), the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) made on 17 September 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”). A copy of the Board’s Decision can be viewed by the following hyperlink[1]. The Board’s Decision was made pursuant to a petition/appeal from a decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 4 May 2018.

2.The Applicant has failed to identify any alleged errors of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness on the part of the Board in reaching the Board’s Decision to make good his challenge, either in the Form 86, the supporting affirmation or the oral hearing of this leave application before me. Moreover, his Form 86 was filed after the 3-month period from the Board’s Decision.

3.Order 53, rule 4(1) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A) requires an application for leave to apply for judicial review to be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when grounds for the application first arose. The last day of the 3‑month period for the Applicant to file his Form 86 fell on 17 December 2020, she was therefore almost 8 months late with this application. In considering whether to extend the period within which the application shall be made, the Court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the merits of the intended application; and (iv) any prejudice to the putative respondent and to public administration (Re Thomas Lai [2014] 6 HKC 1; AW v Director of Immigration [2016] 2 HKC 393).

4.The Applicant did not make any application for extension of time and provided no explanation for the delay in both the Form 86 and the supporting affirmation.

5.The Applicant is an Indian national. He claimed that he feared of being harmed (i) by his creditors and (ii) on account of his conversion from Hinduism to Islam. After a hearing and a comprehensive analysis of the factual assertions of the Applicant, the Board found that the Applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate any real likelihood for the claimed risks to be materialized. In particular, on the risk allegedly arising from his conversion of religion, the Board found discrepancy in his claim and did not accept its existence. Overall speaking, the Board also found available State protection in India and reasonable internal relocation alternative.

6.I have reviewed the Board’s Decision vigorously. In my judgment, the Board’s Decision was based on sound factual findings and there was no apparent legal error in it. Its findings were within its discretion and supported by evidence.

7.It has been reiterated time and again that the primary responsibility for the factual assessment of whether any future risk of ill-treatment exists if an applicant returns to his/her home country lies with the administrative decision-maker. In the absence of any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, the Court would not reopen the Board’s findings or make a determination on the case afresh. The role of the Court in a judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal (see Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246).

8.By reason of the lack of reasonable explanation for the delay and the lack merits in this leave application, extension of time to file Form 86 is refused. The leave application is accordingly dismissed.

Dated the 13^th day of January 2026

(Teresa Ng)
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 13 January 2026 Thakur Shisir Chandra 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 13 January 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 12247/18/6/426/IN2451 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 612/18 (formerly RBCZ/14255/15) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)