Case Document

100%

HCAL 1083/2021

[2026] HKCFI 3241

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1083 of 2021

BETWEEN
	Ravinder Kumar	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board /	Putative
	Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office	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 the Applicant’s submissions in open court;

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

1.   The Form 86 be amended to name the Director of Immigration as a putative interested party as opposed to a putative respondent;

2.   Extension of time to file Form 86 be refused;

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

Observations for the Applicant:

1.By a Form 86 filed on 29 July 2021, the Applicant sought leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 21 October 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”), which was made after a hearing on 25 March 2020 of a petition/appeal from the first tier decision of the Director of Immigration (“DI”) dated 12 November 2018. A copy of the Board’s Decision can be seen by the following hyperlink[1].

2.This application was out of time; delay alone would have caused me to dismiss this application. In the oral hearing before this Court, the Applicant explained that he was taken into custody by a law enforcement agency from June to November 2020 and thus he did not receive a copy of the Board’s Decision in a timely manner. He said he was only informed of the Board’s Decision when he later reported to the DI to continue his recognizance. He has not supplied to this Court any document or evidence showing the period of his incarceration and when he reported to the DI. Orally he also said he could not recall the exact date he was informed of the Board’s Decision. As the Applicant himself said he was released soon after the date of the Board’s Decision (around 1 month), I am unable to accept a reasonable explanation for the delay has been made out.

3.That said, I would also, in line with the case authorities’ requirement, consider the merits of the application in deciding whether extension of time should be granted.

4.The Applicant is an Indian national. His non-refoulement claim was based on the risk of harm from the family of a female he had a relationship with. The female’s father was allegedly affiliated with a political party. After an oral hearing, the Board came to the view that the Applicant’s claim was not credible due to his inconsistent evidence about the female’s family members. The past treatment was assessed to be not meeting minimum level of severity, and there was insufficient evidence to reflect a real and substantial risk of ill-treatment should he return to India. Available State protection and internal relocation alternative were also found.

5.The Applicant has not set out any grounds of judicial review in the Form 86 or supporting affirmation against the Board’s Decision. He just stated that he would be still in danger. In the oral hearing before this Court, the Applicant said he did not want to say anything on his substantive challenge against the Board’s Decision.

6.I have considered the Board’s Decision vigorously. I am unable to detect any reasonable argument that the Board’s Decision was vitiated by public law errors. I therefore refuse to grant extension of time to file the Form 86 and accordingly dismiss this leave application.

Dated the 3^rd day of June 2026

(Wilinda YIU)
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 3^rd June 2026 Ravinder Kumar 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 3^rd June 2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 14546/18/11/389/IN2879 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 3880/18 (T9I75) (Formerly RBCZ 11473/15) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

[1] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2021/HCAL001083_2021_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

Related Cases

Ranked by citation overlap · cases that cite each other appear first

Ravinder Kumar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 632/2026 · Court of Appeal

12 Aug 2026

cites this

Cited by 1 case

Other judgments that cite this case

Ravinder Kumar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Court of Appeal

12 Aug 2026

Ravinder Kumar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Ravinder Kumar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office