DANISH ARSHAD MEHMOOD alias DANISH ARSHAD MOHMOOD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 2300/2025

[2026] HKCFI 3300

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2300 OF 2025

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 3 November 2025 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in dismissing his appeal regarding his non-refoulement claim upon finding that none of the grounds put forward by him reasonably arguable for his intended challenge, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the process before the Director of Immigration (“Director”) or the Board or in their decisions, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success in his intended application.

2.  The Applicant now by a summons issued on 31 December 2025 seeks leave to appeal against that decision out of time, as the 14-day period for him to file his appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A ended on 17 November 2025, and hence he was some 1 ½ months 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 an 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 1 ½ months must be considered as substantial and inordinate, for which he explained in his affirmation that he has been unfairly detained by the Immigration Department for many months under filthy conditions that he was unable to focus in bringing his intended appeal within the required period.

5.  The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 3 November 2025 to his then detention at the Castle Peak Bay Immigration Centre (“CIC”) without being returned through undelivered post, and while accepting his alleged conditions therein may well be correct, but with assistance available from the stationed welfare officers there, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has provided a good or valid justification for his such substantial delay.

6.  More importantly, nor did he put forward any proper or valid draft or proposed grounds of appeal, or any particulars of any error in the decision or why it may be reasonably arguable that the decision was unfair or unreasonable either in his summons or his affirmation in which he just repeated his claim as before and suggested that the court should have granted his leave application on compassionate grounds due to his personal situation which is however clearly not a proper basis for the court to do so. 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 either.

7.  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.