Lama Sunil v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 2394/2019[2026] HKCFI 3027

Court

High Court CFI

Date16 Jun 2026

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 2394/2019

[2026] HKCFI 3027

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2394 of 2019

BETWEEN
	Lama Sunil	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 oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge Levy:

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 19 August 2019, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). The intended judicial review was against the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 15 March 2017 (“Board’s Decision”) dismissing the applicant's appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 22 June 2015 rejecting the applicant's non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds[1] except BOR 2 risk ground which was later dismissed by the Director on 26 April 2017, against which appeal was also dismissed by the Board on 2 August 2019. The Board’s Decision can be viewed at the following hyperlinks: -

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2019/HCAL002394_2019_files/1st_Board's_Decision.pdf

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2019/HCAL002394_2019_files/2nd_Board's_Decision.pdf

2.The applicant’s claim was that, if refouled to Nepal, he would be harmed or killed by a leader of local area of the applicant’s residence after the applicant refused to change allegiance from the Unified Marxist Leninist party to join the Nepal Samajwadi Party.

Discussion

3.On 21 November 2025, the court received a letter by fax from the Removal Assessment and Litigation (Removal and Deportation) Section (I) of the Immigration Department, informing the court that the applicant had been granted permission to stay in Hong Kong as a Hong Kong resident on 21 December 2021. In the circumstances, the applicant plainly is no longer in need of non-refoulement protection. The Leave Application shall therefore be dismissed.

Order

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

Dated the 16^th day of June 2026

( Alfred CHAN )
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 16/6/2026 Lama Sunil 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 16/6/2026 Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: BOR 701/17/6/18/N60, USM 1807/15/6/193/N196 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: RBCZ 9001339/17 formerly (RBCZ 318/14), QA T/C 224/15 (Formerly RBCZ 318/14) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Officer (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1

[1] The applicable grounds are risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance (“torture risk”) , BOR 2 risk (this refers to the risk of violation of the right to life under Art. 2 of s.8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”), BOR 3 risk (this refers to the risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Art 3 of HKBOR) and persecution risk (This refers to the risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Art. 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol) under the USM (This refers to the Hong Kong Government’s Unified Screening Mechanism (“USM”) implemented since 3 March 2014 to process claims for non-refoulement protection. For a detailed description of the USM, see the judgment of Zervos J in HKSAR v Vu Thang Duong & Anor [2015] 3 HKC 293.

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

HKSAR v. Vu Thang Duong