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

HCAL 1209/2020

[2026] HKCFI 2786

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1209 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

Introduction

1.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. He entered Hong Kong illegally via Chinese mainland on 5 December 2015. He was arrested by the police on the same day.

2.  The Applicant submitted a written representation for a non‑refoulement claim under the Unified Screening Mechanism on 8 December 2015. In gist, the Applicant claimed that he would be harmed or killed by the people from the Muttahida Qaumi Movement if he returned to Pakistan because he refused to join their party.

3.  On 3 September 2018, the Director of Immigration refused the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim. The Applicant’s subsequent appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) was dismissed on 2 June 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”).

4.  By Form 86 filed on 17 June 2020, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the Board’s Decision (the “Leave Application”). The hearing of the Leave Application took place on 28 July 2025 and the Applicant attended in person. At the hearing, the Applicant said the conditions in Pakistan were not favourable, and that his enemy had become even stronger. He asked the Court to let him live in Hong Kong.

5.  By the decision dated 11 September 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 4157) (the “Court’s Decision”), this Court dismissed the Leave Application on the ground that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success.

6.  By the Summons filed on 3 February 2026, the Applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal against the Court’s Decision, as the 14‑day period for him to file the appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court had expired (the “Application”).

7.  The Application was heard on 11 May 2026 and the Applicant attended in person. At the hearing, when being asked about the delay in making the Application, the Applicant simply said he did not know the court procedures. The Applicant gave the same explanation in the supporting Affirmation.

8.  Apart from the above, the Applicant indicated that he had nothing to say in respect of the Application.

Discussion

9.  In considering whether to extend the time to appeal, it is trite that the court will take into account: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason(s) for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the degree of prejudice to the other party if an extension of time is granted. The prospect of success of an intended appeal is important. The court will not grant an extension of time to appeal for a hopeless appeal to be pursued. (see Re Mushtaq Imran Ali [2025] HKCA 705, at §§16-17)

10.  In the present case, there was delay of more than 4 months. The delay was substantial. I do not accept the Applicant’s explanation for the delay. If he wanted to appeal against the Court’s Decision, it was incumbent on him to seek help and find out the correct procedures. There is no evidence showing what he had done in the 4-month period.

11.  Despite the lack of satisfactory explanation for the substantial delay, I shall still proceed to consider the merit of the intended appeal before deciding on the Application.

12.  In the Summons and in the supporting Affirmation, the Applicant did not provide any grounds in support of the intended appeal. Despite being given a further opportunity to make submissions in respect of the Application at the hearing on 11 May 2026, the Applicant indicated that he had nothing to say in respect of the Application.

13.  I have considered the Court’s Decision together with the Board’s Decision in detail. The Board had considered and provided adequate and valid reasons in dismissing the Applicant’s case. The Applicant did not provide any grounds in support of the Leave Application. The Court had reviewed the Board’s Decision, and came to the decision that there is no realistic prospect of success in the intended challenge of the Board’s Decision (§§6-7 thereof). I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Court’s Decision. Neither has the Applicant made any such allegations. It is incumbent upon the Applicant to demonstrate with sufficient particulars that the Court had erred in the Court’s Decision. The Applicant has plainly failed to do so. Accordingly, I fail to see any prospect of success in the intended appeal.

Conclusion

14.  As there is no satisfactory explanation for the substantial delay, and more importantly no prospect of success in the intended appeal, I refuse to extend the time for the appeal. The Application is hereby dismissed.