Veluchamy Maniraj v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 10/2022

[2026] HKCFI 3939

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 10 OF 2022

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

Introduction

1.This is the Applicant’s application by summons dated 17 June 2026 for an extension of time to appeal the decision of this Court dated 26 March 2026 (the “Decision”) refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review. A hearing was conducted on 6 July 2026. The Applicant appeared in person.

2.In Jagg Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office[1], the Court of Appeal held, at [10], that in considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the court will take into account: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospects of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted.

Length of the delay and reasons for delay

3.Under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, where an application for leave to apply for judicial review is refused by a judge, the applicant may appeal against the judge’s order to the Court of Appeal within 14 days after such order.

4.The time to appeal, therefore, expired on 9 April 2026. The delay is more than two months, which is substantial.

5.The Applicant alleges in the summons that he did not receive the Decision and it was already out of time to appeal when he came to know it. At the hearing on 6 July 2026, however, he admitted that there was no change to his address and he actually received the Decision on or about 26 March 2026. There was, therefore, no proper explanation for the delay.

Prospects of success of the intended appeal

6.The procedural history against which this application arose is as follows. On 4 November 2021, the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dismissed his claim for non-refoulement protection (the “Board’s Decision”). On 5 January 2022, he applied for leave to apply for judicial review. In refusing his leave application, this Court held, inter alia, that the Board had carefully considered the Applicant’s evidence. The Board’s Decision was comprehensive with adequate reasons. This Court did not find any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision and was not satisfied the Applicant’s intended challenge of the same was reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success. As a result, the Applicant’s leave application was refused.

7.Now the Applicant seeks an extension of time to appeal the Decision. Apart from repeating his case (i.e. he has severe problems in his home country and his enemies will kill him if he returns) that was rejected by the Board, the Applicant’s summons and supporting affirmation do not identify any grounds of appeal. In particular, the Applicant has failed to identify what is wrong, whether of fact or of law, in the Decision. In my view, his intended appeal has no prospects of success.

Prejudice to the respondent

8.As I have held, the Applicant’s intended appeal has no prospects of success. To allow such a challenge to proceed when it is already out of time would only drain the intended respondents’ time and resources unnecessarily and cause prejudice.

Conclusion

9.In view of the substantial delay, the absence of any proper explanation for the delay, the lack of prospects of success in the intended appeal and the prejudice to the intended respondent, the application for an extension of time to appeal is refused.

The applicant was unrepresented and appeared in person.