MEHMOOD FAISAL v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1308/2020

[2026] HKCFI 2205

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1308 OF 2020

________________________

BETWEEN

________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

1.  By a summons filed on 19 March 2026 (“Summons”) supported by an affirmation also filed on the same date (“Affirmation”) the Applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal my order dated 17 October 2025 (“Order”) wherein I had refused his application for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“NRCPO”) dated 21 May 2020 (“NRCPO Decision”), and for an order that the costs of the application be in the cause of the appeal.

2.  In dealing with such I have had regard below to the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the prospects of the intended appeal, and the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time is granted (see Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346; Nupur Mst [2018] HKCA 524; Nguyen Van Quyen [2025] HKCA 510).

3.  In the Summons, the Applicant claims to have set out his grounds of the proposed appeal and order that he seeks in a draft Notice of Appeal annexed to the Summons. However, no document is annexed to the Summons.

4.  In the Affirmation, the Applicant merely says that he is unrepresented, that he has no means to instruct a private lawyer, and asks the Court to exercise its discretion to allow him to appeal out of time.

5.  I refuse the applications and dismiss the Summons for the following reasons.

6.  Firstly, as the 14-day period for the Applicant to appeal against the Order expired on 31 October 2025 (RHC O. 53 r. 3(4)), the application is over 4 months late. If and insofar as his claim in the Affirmation is an attempt by him to argue that he was unrepresented, has no knowledge of the law and the time limit to raise an appeal, and needed additional time to make out his appeal, these are not valid explanations for the substantial delay. Indeed, ignorance of the rules of court is not a justification for the delay (Gurung Min Bahadur, supra, at §10; Pascua Janice Alcaraz [2025] HKCA 579 at §§12-13).

7.  Secondly, the prospects of success of the intended appeal are important as the court will not grant an extension of time to pursue a hopeless appeal (Tran Van Anh [2025] HKCA 408). I had, in my decision, reviewed the NRCPO Decision with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, applying the enhanced Wednesbury standard, and found no reasonably arguable public law grounds to vitiate such. I do not see that there is any proper ground of appeal with any prospect of success, particularly when the Applicant has not identified any basis (in the nature of an error of law, any failure to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court, or that I was plainly wrong) on which the Court of Appeal would reverse my decision (Nupur Mst, supra).

8.  In the premises, it would be futile to extend time and the respondent would be clearly and needlessly prejudiced if it had to deal with a hopeless appeal.