Rajput Harmeet and Others v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1292/2025

[2026] HKCFI 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 1292 OF 2025

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

The application

1.The applicants are members of a family. This is their joint application. The 1^st applicant is the father (“the father”), the 2^nd applicant is the mother (“the mother”), the 3^rd applicant is the daughter, aged 17 (“the daughter”) and the 4^th applicant is the son, aged 15 (“the son”). They are illegal immigrants. The mother gave birth to the daughter and the son in India.

2.The father and the mother are illegal immigrants by staying in Hong Kong without permission and they lodged a non-refoulement claim for themselves and their children with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director rejected their application and they appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). Having considered the evidence, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected their appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision. The children were born in India.

3.Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the applicants filed Form No. 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

4.By Form CALL-1 dated 4 February 2026 (“the Judgment”), the Court dismissed their application for the reason that there was no realistic prospect of success in their intended application.

5.The Court’s decision was sent to the applicants’ last known address on 4 February 2026 without being returned by the Post Office. They were deemed to receive the Judgment.[1]

6.The deadline for them to file their notice of appeal is 18 February 2026.

7.In summon filed on 24 February 2026, the applicants asked for extension of time to file the notice of appeal. In their affirmation in support of their application, they said they are not aware of the time limit for filing the notice of appeal.

8.Their application for extension of time to appeal is late for 6 days.

Discussion

9.Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A and Order 53, rule 3(3) of the RHC, having considered the applicants’ reason, I decide to determine this application on paper without an oral hearing[2].

10.The Court will consider the factors as set out in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam [2016] 2 HKC 393 at para. 27(3) in considering if extension of time should be extended: (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.

11.I shall consider the merits of their case.

12.In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, the Court of Appeal held:

“19. The prospect of success of the intended appeal is important: the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued, see Re Rahman Wasif [2019] HKCA 299 at [13]; Re Kpamou Gbotoi Bernard [2019] HKCA 168; and Re Irshad Muhammad [2018] HKCA 864 at [16].”

13.The applicants’ claim was based upon the 1^st applicant’s allegation that if refouled, they will be harmed or killed by the gangsters hired by the mother’s relatives over properties dispute.

14.The Director rejected their application for the reason that their claim was not substantiated. They appealed to the Board.

15.The Board did not believe their evidence, dismissed their appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.

16.The Board also had separately consideration of the child specific issues of the son and the daughter.

17.The applicants have raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s finding of the facts or to challenge the Judgment.

18.There is no realistic prospect of success in their intended appeal.

19.In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for their appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss their joint application.

20.I shall treat non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the RHC in these proceedings as a mere irregularity without rendering the 3^rd and the 4^th applicants’ application a nullity.

The applicants were unrepresented.