CHEEMA HARPREET SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1486/2020

[2026] HKCFI 2830

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1486 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Introduction

1.  In the application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”), the applicant indicated that he did not wish to have an oral hearing.  In light of the applicant’s indication, this court determined the applicant’s Leave Application against the decision of the appeal board dated 23 June 2020 on paper. 

2.  The decision together with the order dismissing the applicant’s Leave Application were posted to the address updated by the Immigration Department on 15 August 2025.  The decision together with the order however were returned and undelivered by the post office on 31 December 2025.

3.  According to the chop imprinted on the envelope, it was stated that the reason for the non-delivery was that the building name did not match with the street name. 

4.  On 20 January 2026, the applicant issued a summons (“Summons”)  to apply for leave to appeal against my decision out of time.  Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3, (4)  of the Rules of the High Court, the time limit for an appeal to the Court of Appeal is 14 days after the order of the court.

5.  In the circumstances, the deadline for the filing of the application to appeal expired on 11 December 2025. So the Summons was late for about 1¹/₂ month.

6.  At the hearing of the Summons, the applicant appeared in person and made submissions.

The law

7.  The applicable guidelines governing the discretion of an extension of time to appeal against the decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review are as follows.  The court shall have regard to (i)  the length of the delay; (ii)  the reason for the delay; (iii)  the prospects of success of the intended appeal; (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 Gurang Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346; and Nguyen Thi Hong Thuy [2024] HKCA 1172.

Discussion

8.  In the applicant’s affirmation in support of the Summons, the applicant did not give any reason for the delay.  He only stated that he had been informed by his family member that it was dangerous for him to return to India.  He was unrepresented and he had no means to instruct a private lawyer.  Hence, he had not provided any reason for the delay.

9.  However, the applicant stated at the hearing that when he had not received the result of the Leave Application after some time, he discussed with his friends about two months ago.  His friend then said that he could check the outcome of the Leave Application online. Afterwards he found out online that the Leave Application was rejected. He was told that in order to enable him to have one more chance, he had to come to the High Court to make the present application. 

10.  In considering the length of delay, I do not think it is applicable.  This is because on the court’s record, the court’s decision and the order had been returned. I accept that the applicant had not received the court’s decision and the order before the expiry of the deadline to appeal. I accept that there is an explanation for his delay.

11.  However, one of the factors this court need also to consider is merits.  In his affirmation in support, the applicant had not provided any intended grounds to appeal against the court’s decision.  I explore at the hearing more from the applicant on his proposed grounds for his intended appeal.

12.  What the applicant told me is troubling. He was not really interested in finding out the reasons given by this court as to why this court rejected the Leave Application. According to the applicant, his “so-called” lawyer friend advised him that in order to enable him to stay in Hong Kong longer, he needed to go to the High Court.  He kept repeating that he could not now go back to his home country, and he asked the court to review his case again.

13.  In order to ensure that the court did not misunderstand his submissions, I asked the applicant as to what his real purpose of his intended appeal was and what errors he found with the court’s decision.  He was not able to state or pinpoint to any errors this court had made.  All he repeatedly said was that he simply could not go back, and he needed more time to stay in Hong Kong.

14.  I found it unfortunate that due to the spelling error the Immigration Department provided, the posting of the decision and the order was unsuccessful.  This is because according to the address updated by the Immigration Department, the name of the road was wrongly stated as “On Ning Road”.  However, the correct street name should be “On Hing”. 

15.  It is however noted that, before the handing down of the court’s decision on 11 December 2025, the court had sent to the applicant a letter informing him that a decision would be handed down around on 19 November 2025. The address the court used was the one provided by the Immigration Department, which was On Ning Road. There was no return post undelivered to On Ning Road address. So I believe that the applicant had most probably received that letter dated 19 November 2025, informing him of the impending delivery of the decision. 

16.  In my view, had he taken care to check that letter, he would have discovered the slight mistake on the description of the street name. He could have informed the court and corrected the error. This, he certainly had failed to do. 

17.  Since the applicant had not provided any grounds in support of his intended appeal, and his real motive of his intended appeal is only to play for time, I am not satisfied that this is an authentic challenge to the decision.

Conclusion

18.  In light of the complete lack of grounds, I am not satisfied that there is a prospect of success in his intended appeal.

19.  Whether to extend time to appeal is at the discretion of the court. Having taken great care in considering the applicant’s submission and the facts of this case, I am disinclined to exercise my discretion to extend time to the applicant to serve his appeal. 

20.  The Summons is therefore dismissed.