GHULAM MURTAZA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 2779/2019

[2026] HKCFI 2912

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2779 OF 2019

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 10 July 2025, I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of what he claimed to be a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in rejecting/dismissing his non-refoulement claim when in fact no such decision has ever been made by the Board as regard any non-refoulement claim by him, nor did he respond to the enquiries made by the Court for his clarification or explanation as regard his intended application upon finding no basis legal or otherwise at all for him to make such an application.

2.  The Applicant now by a summons issued on 28 July 2025 (of which somehow was only recently brought to the court’s attention) seeks leave to appeal against that decision out of time, as the 14-day period after the decision within which to file his appeal under Order 53 Rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A expired on 24 July 2025, and hence he was about 4 days late with his intended appeal.

3.  In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the Court shall have regard to (i) 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 MK HCMP 2609/2016, 10 January 2017; Chu On Fong Winter v The Appeal Panel (Housing) HCMP 982/2017, 20 July 2017; Islam Raja Rais v Director of Immigration HCMP 881/2017, 26 June 2017; Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346.

4.  In the Applicant’s case, a delay of 4 days would not be considered as significant at all, and for which he did not provide any explanation in his summons or affirmation, and that the record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 10 July 2025 to his then reported address without being returned through undelivered post, but given the relative insignificance of his delay, I propose to focus on the prospect of success of his intended appeal.

5.  However, the Applicant has also failed to put forth any proper or valid draft or proposed grounds of appeal, or any particulars of any error in the decision or why it may reasonably be argued that the decision was unfair or unreasonable either in his summons or in his affirmation. As such, and in the absence of any error in the decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not see any prospect of success in his intended appeal.

6.  In the premises, and for the reasons given, it would be futile to extend time for what appears to be a hopeless appeal. Accordingly, I refuse his application for leave to appeal out of time, and dismiss his summons.