MOOSA JAHIDABEGUM MOHAMMED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1631/2020

[2026] HKCFI 881

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1631 OF 2020

_____________

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.  By my decision dated 18 September 2025, I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 16 July 2020 which refused the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  By a summons issued on 19 November 2025, the Applicant seeks an 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 2 October 2025, the Applicant is out of time in her intended appeal by around 1.5 months.

3.  The applicable principles are trite: the court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reasons 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 quite significant. In the summons the Applicant said that she was unable to arrange money to pursue the appeal and so it was brought out of time. At the hearing she retracted from this version and said that she was trying to seek assistance on the appeal from people around her but no one was willing to help (the Applicant lives alone). Eventually she received help but she was already out of time. I find it odd that the Applicant has put forward 2 different explanations for the delay (which should be a very straightforward matter). I do not consider either version to be satisfactory.

5.  In any case, there is nothing in either the summons or the supporting affirmation to attempt to raise any proposed grounds of appeal or to identify any error in the decision she seeks to appeal against. I have asked the Applicant at the hearing on 8 December 2025 to identify the supposed errors in the decision, but the Applicant was unable to articulate any, apart from asserting that the danger remained in her home country and that she has been receiving eye treatment in Hong Kong. Plainly these are not proper grounds of appeal. Accordingly I fail to see any prospect of success in her intended appeal.

6.  In the premises, it would be pointless to extend time for the Applicant’s intended appeal. I therefore dismiss the application.