PRADIP KHADGI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

PRADIP KHADGI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave was refused and the application dismissed because the applicant showed an unexplained eight-year delay, failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds, and the Board's decision demonstrated no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and was open to the Board on the evidence, including a viable internal relocation finding.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2236
Parties
Applicant: Pradip Khadgi; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 April 2026
Case Number
HCAL105/2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/unified Screening Mechanism) / Leave Application (extension of Time) Refused and Application Dismissed
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; extension of time refused; leave application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Judicial Review, Leave to Apply, Extension of Time, Procedural Fairness, Internal Relocation, Unified Screening Mechanism
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Judicial Review Leave to Apply Extension of Time +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pradip Khadgi

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (non Refoulement/unified Screening Mechanism) / Leave Application (extension of Time) Refused and Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time for filing a leave application under Order 53 r 4
  2. 2 Whether the Board's decision contained error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality
  3. 3 Whether the applicant demonstrated a real risk on return to Nepal or that internal relocation was not viable

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused and the application dismissed because the applicant showed an unexplained eight-year delay, failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds, and the Board's decision demonstrated no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and was open to the Board on the evidence, including a viable internal relocation finding.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; extension of time refused; leave application dismissed.

Orders

  • Form 86 be amended to name only the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office as Putative Respondent and the Director of Immigration as Putative Interested Party.
  • Extension of time for the application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board's decision dated 10 November 2014 is refused.