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

HCAL 1885/2020

[2026] HKCFI 3062

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1885 OF 2020

________________________

BETWEEN

________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

1.  By my decision dated 11 November 2025, I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 14 September 2020 which refused the Applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim.

2.  By a summons filed on 19 January 2026, the Applicant seeks extension of time to appeal against my above decision. As the 14-day appeal period under O 53, r 3(4) of the RHC expired on 25 November 2025, the Applicant is out of time in his intended appeal by almost 2 months.

3.  The applicable principles are trite: the court shall have regard to (a) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (iv) the prejudice to the respondent if extension of time were granted (see Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226 and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346).

4.  The delay in the present case was not insubstantial and apart from in general stating that he was unrepresented and uneducated, the Applicant did not put forth any proper explanation for the delay in his affirmation filed in support of this summons.

5.  The affirmation in support instead contains submissions in relation to substantive merits of the intended appeal, but these are either repetition of the allegations before the TCAB or unsupported by any objective evidence, or both.

6.  At the hearing of this summons on 11 May 2026, when asked if he had anything to add, the Applicant said that he could not go back for another 2 to 3 years, otherwise his life would still be at risk, and that he had multiple medical conditions, for which his doctor advised him not to travel.

7.  Sympathy aside, these matters do not advance the merits of his intended appeal at all.

8.  Lastly, the Applicant requested for a reduction in the frequency of his reporting to the Immigration Department, from weekly to preferably monthly, owing to his health and financial constraint. Unfortunately, this is not a matter within this court’s remit.

9.  I therefore fail to see any prospect of success in his intended appeal and it would be pointless to extend the time for the same. I dismiss this application.