HONEY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

bjbjJ HCAL 2084/2020 [2026] HKCFI 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST 2084 OF 2020 _____________ BETWEEN Honey Applicant Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party _____________ Before: Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers Date of Decision: 6 May 2026 D E C I S I O N The application The applicant is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission and he lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration ( the Director ). The Director rejected his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board ( the Board ). Having considered his evidence, the Board, by its Decision ( Board Decision ), rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director Decision. Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court ( ), the applicant filed Form No. 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board s Decision. By Form CALL-1 dated 19 November 2025 ( Court decision ), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that there is no realistic prospect of success in his intended application. The Court s decision was sent to the applicant on 19 November 2025 at his last known address without being returned from the Post Office. He is deemed to receive the Court s decision . The time for filing the notice of appeal expired on 3 December 2025 . By summons filed on 23 February 2026, the applicant applied for appeal against the Court s decision out of time. He is late for more than 2 months. In his affirmation support of his application, the applicant said that did not receive the Court s decision. Discussion Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A and Order 53, rule 3(3) of the RHC, having considered the applicant s reason, I decide to determine this application on paper without an oral hearing . 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 his case. 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]. The applicant claimed that if refouled, he will be harmed of killed by his uncle and cousins because of a land dispute. The Director rejected his claim because it was not substantiated. He appealed to the Board. Having considered the evidence, the Board dismissed his appeal for the reason that it rejected his evidence. Those reason under paragraph 7 is not valid for his delay. There is no valid reason from the applicant to challenge the Board s Decision or the Court s decision. In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for his appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss his application. (K.W. Lung) Deputy High Court Judge The applicant was unrepresented. Re: Ravinder Singh [2023] HKCA 604, Hon Poon CJHC and Cheung JA, 28 April 2023 17. The applicant had not filed any notice of change of address for service to notify of any changes in his address. According to the Court s record, the Court s decision was sent to the applicant s last known address on 31 March 2022 by ordinary post. He was deemed to receive the same on the next following day, not being a specified day such as a Saturday or a general holiday. He was therefore deemed to have received the Court s decision on 1 April 2022. The public holidays are included in the 14-day period as per Order 2(5) of the Rules of the High Court 2. Reckoning periods of time (O. 3, r. 2) (5) Where, apart from this paragraph, the period in question, being a period of 7 days or less, would include a specified day, that day shall be excluded. (35 of 1998 s. 5; 18 of 2016 s. 5) Ogbozor Tochukwu Eugene v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Director of Immigration [2022] HKCA 607, Hon Kwan VP and G Lam JA, 6 May 2022: 16. In respect of his complaint of no oral hearing, the judge is entitled to decide the matter on paper pursuant to the Order 32, rules 11 and 11A and Order 53 rule 3(3) of the Rules of the High Court. PAGE - PAGE - A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V wn_R hna$ hna$ hna$ hna$ hCkE h OA h OA gdM^ gdM^ gdM^ gdM^ gdM^ gdM^ gdM^ gdM^ gdM^ gdM^ h0`^ h0`^ hna$ hna$ hna$ hna$ hna$ gdM^ gdM^ gdM^ gd0`^ h9ie h9ie & #$ [Content_Types].xml _rels/.rels theme/theme/themeManager.xml K Y, sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml z)P -zh 83;3;{ ]XS1IH 0H!A Ssd- ]A3U mH#[ A\;> K}*7c ^I77 >g^* y')f ZI$G ,{uk< WV j k3 zjv3,j X1? Xjg YIsR3 gm~x theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels 5 6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/> [Content_Types].xml dlyLho ;d]6 yJ.; _rels/.rels fLV:* ]m@= T;GI b9`5 drs/e2oDoc.xml ~XMf #R+^ \w(Ljl f}#- e^NV 0?j ! .j$ drs/downrev.xmlL Py9\ [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK drs/e2oDoc.xmlPK drs/downrev.xmlPK [Content_Types].xml dlyLho ;d]6 yJ.; _rels/.rels fLV:* ]m@= T;GI b9`5 drs/e2oDoc.xml s\^ ] P7,0 S6w C@K3 Y5Lo rBfsJ OH^, AUENil drs/downrev.xmlL 6#K)V [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK drs/e2oDoc.xmlPK drs/downrev.xmlPK [Content_Types].xml dlyLho ;d]6 yJ.; _rels/.rels fLV:* ]m@= T;GI b9`5 drs/e2oDoc.xml [qV{i .=A ?Y$j Cw^G .fiV 0#e+ =6"J drs/downrev.xmlL Py9\ [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK drs/e2oDoc.xmlPK drs/downrev.xmlPK [Content_Types].xml dlyLho ;d]6 yJ.; _rels/.rels fLV:* ]m@= T;GI b9`5 drs/e2oDoc.xml qu=t- V%N/ rEoJ $qU#: F#^D .=A ^6Lm N&gGG 6iJI L)! t86" !mVx& cxN` tx*B drs/downrev.xmlL 6#K)V [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK drs/e2oDoc.xmlPK drs/downrev.xmlPK &tBL u6k7\ GLqL GLqL u6k7 dsaD _V5i HCSD 17/2012 Windows User CALL-1 Decision Template.dotx LEE Chun-wa Allen Microsoft Office Word Judiciary Hong Kong HCSD 17/2012 Title <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?><b:Sources xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" SelectedStyle="\APASixthEditionOfficeOnline.xsl" StyleName="APA" Version="6"></b:Sources> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> <ds:datastoreItem ds:itemID="{B9FDD95D-26EF-4AC5-92E0-60212764FD8B}" xmlns:ds="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/customXml"><ds:schemaRefs><ds:schemaRef ds:uri="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"/></ds:schemaRefs></ds:datastoreItem> Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8