KARRE SRINIVAS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1668/2020

[2026] HKCFI 882

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1668 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 11 March 2019 which refused the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  By a summons issued on 6 October 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 his intended appeal by 4 days.

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 not lengthy and it was asserted in the summons that the Applicant received the court’s letter late. If the intended appeal is reasonably arguable, I would be prepared to allow an extension of time.

5.  But 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 he seeks to appeal against. When asked at the hearing on 21 October 2025, the Applicant did not add anything apart from saying that he was receiving medical treatment in Hong Kong in 2 different public hospitals and he would need to stay in Hong Kong until his treatment has been completed. This is plainly not a proper appeal ground. As such I fail to see any prospect of success in his intended appeal.

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