Dacosta Kofi v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 934/2023

[2026] HKCFI 5084

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 934 of 2023

BETWEEN

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

	consideration of documents only;          or
	consideration of documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

1.  The extension of time for the application for Judicial Review be refused; and

2.  The application for leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 2 March 2023 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”). His application is late. His application shall not be later than 3 months from the date of the Board’s Decision[1], which expired on 2 June 2023. His application was filed on 13 June 2023, which is late for 11 days. This issue will be dealt with below.

2.The applicant appeared before the Court on 31 August 2026.

The applicant

3.The applicant is a national of Ghana. He is an illegal immigrant. He lodged a non-refoulement claim on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by the King of his village of Kyekeyebease and the village committee as a human sacrifice of the God Tigali.

4.Details of the applicant’s story can be found in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink. https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2023/HCAL000934_2023_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

The Director’s Decision

5.The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a.  risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);

b.  risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);

c.  risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and

d.  risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

6.By Notice of Decision dated 29 June 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director refused the applicant’s claim on all applicable risks because it was unsubstantiated.

The Board’s Decision

7.The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 27 October 2022, the Board conducted an oral hearing. He was represented by a duty lawyer. The Director was represented by a Government Counsel. He had given oral evidence and answered questions.

8.Having considered the evidence and the legal submissions, the Board made the findings below.

“85. … I do not accept any of the Appellant’s claims regarding a decision made by his uncle that he should be murdered as part of a ritual killing. I am drawn to the conclusion that the Appellant is not a truthful witness and he has manufactured his claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong. I consider that much of the Appellant’s claims are not credible, inconsistent and implausible and he showed a considerable tendency to alter and adapt his evidence in an attempt to establish he is at risk of harm in Ghana some 17 years after he departed.” See the reasons at [86]-[98]

9.For the reasons above, the Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

10.The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 13 June 2023 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

11.The applicant said in his affirmation that he did not have the means to pay for the filing of Form 86 and he obtained support from non-government organization. That is the reason for his being late. However, he did not raise any specific ground to challenge the Board’s Decision.

DISCUSSION

12.As mentioned in paragraph 1, this application is late. In AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015, §27 the Court of Appeal held that for extension of time for making the application for leave to apply for judicial review, the court has to consider, inter alia, the prospect of success of the intended application. I shall consider the merits of the applicant’s case.

13.The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny. Before me, when asked if he considered the Board’s Decision was wrong, he replied that he did not think the Board’s Decision was wrong. He asked the Court to review it anyway.

14.The applicant has not raised any valid ground to challenge the Board’s findings.

15.In the circumstances, the applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

16.I refuse to extend time for the applicant to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

Dated the 9^th day of September 2026

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

Form CALL-1