ABDUL RAUF HARIS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 424/2020

[2025] HKCFI 4251

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 424 OF 2020

_____________

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.  By Summons dated 4 September 2025, the applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the order of this court dated 30 July 2025 (“Order”) , dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review against the Torture Claims Appeal Board.

2.  Pursuant to O 53 r 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, the time limit for an appeal to the Court of Appeal is 14 days (from the date the order of the court is made). The deadline for the applicant to serve his notice of appeal would have been 13 August 2025. The applicant is about 21 days’ late.

3.  After having considered the applicant’s supporting affirmation filed together with the summons, I consider that it is appropriate to dispose of the summons on paper without a hearing.

The law

4.  The guidelines governing the discretion for an extension of time to appeal against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review therefore apply. A Court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the prospect of success 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 Gurang Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346; and Nguyen Thi Hong Thuy [2024] HKCA 1172.

Discussion

5.  According to a hand-written letter attached to the supporting affirmation, the applicant stated that by the time he received the Order (together with the decision in “Form Call-1”), it was already 2 days late. It was stated that on the day of the hearing for his application for leave to apply for judicial review before the court, he was detained in the Castle Peak Bay Immigration Centre (“CIC”). 　He therefore provided CIC as one of the updated addresses in addition to his residential address at Shamshuipo. However, he was transferred to Tai Tam Gap Correctional Institution (“TTG”) the next day after the hearing. By the time his wife posted the Order to him, it was already late by 2 days.

6.  I consider the applicant’s reason for the delay credible. According to the court file, on 30 July 2025, the court sent to the applicant the Order and the Form Call-1 to the two addresses the applicant confirmed on the date of the hearing on 27 May 2025. On 8 August 2025, the court received the post from the CIC returned undelivered. The envelope contained a remark stating that the applicant had already left CIC. In the circumstances, I believe that when the applicant received the Order by post from the wife, the 14 days’ time limit would have likely lapsed.

7.  Having regard to the circumstances beyond the applicant’s control, and that he had promptly prepared the supporting affirmation on 18 August 2025 shortly after he had received the Order, I accept that the applicant has provided good reason for the delay.

8.  In the circumstances, I’d exercise my discretion to grant an extension of time to the applicant to file the appeal out of time.

Order

9.  There shall be an extension of time to the applicant to file the appeal against the Order date 30 July 2025, which appeal shall be filed within 14 days, i.e. on or before 2 October 2025.