Sasidharan Rajesh Kumar and Others v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1558/2025

[2026] HKCFI 4332

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1558 OF 2025

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

The application

1.The applicants are illegal immigrants by staying in Hong Kong without permission and they lodged a non-refoulement claim 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 their evidence, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected their appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

2.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.

3.By Form CALL-1 dated 10 June 2026 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed their application as there is no realistic prospect of success in their intended application.

4.The Court’s decision was sent to the applicants on 10 June 2026 at their last known address without being returned from the Post Office. They are deemed to receive the Court’s decision[1].

5.The time for filing the notice of appeal expired on 24 June 2026[2].

6.By summons filed on 25 June 2026, the applicants applied for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time. They are late for 1 day.

7.In their affirmation in support of their application, the applicants said that they did not receive the Court’s decision and they needed a friend to assist them.

Discussion

8.Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A and Order 53, rule 3(3) of the RHC, I decide to determine this application on paper without an oral hearing[3].

9.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. I shall consider the merits of their case.

10.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].”

11.The applicants claimed that if refouled, they will be killed by the 1^st applicant’s creditor.

12.The Director rejected their claim because it was not substantiated. They appealed to the Board.

13.Having considered the evidence, the Board dismissed their appeal because it agreed with the Director that their claim was unsubstantiated.

14.Those reasons under paragraph 7 may be good for the period of delay. However, there is no merit in their intended application. The Court of Appeal has ruled that leave should not be granted if there is lack of merit in the intended application.

15.There is no valid reason from the applicants to challenge the Board’s Decision or the Court’s decision.

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

The applicants were unrepresented.