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

HCAL 109/2021 [2026] HKCFI 2423 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO. 109 OF 2021 _____________ BETWEEN Rathor Manish Applicant and Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent and Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party Before: Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers Date of Decision: 29 April 2026 Decision 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 (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision. Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), 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 11 November 2025 (“the Court’s 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 11 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 25 November 2025. By summons filed on 12 December 2025, the applicant applied for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time. He is late for 17 days. In his affirmation support of his application, the applicant said that he was not given an opportunity to clarify his case and he 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 or killed by his tenant over 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 agreed with the Director that his claim was unsubstantiated. Those reasons under paragraph 7 are not valid for his delay. He did not ask for a hearing, so the application was dealt with on the papers. He is deemed to receive the Court’s decision. 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.