AMINUL ISLAM MD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1683/2020

[2026] HKCFI 883

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1683 OF 2020

_____________

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.  By my decision dated 23 October 2025, I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 14 August 2020 which refused the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  By a summons issued on 11 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 6 November 2025, the Applicant is out of time in his intended appeal by 5 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 did not receive the court order “on time”. 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. I have asked the Applicant at the hearing on 14 November 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 his home country because there was no ruling party and the law enforcement departments were not functioning properly. Plainly this is not a proper ground of appeal. Accordingly 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.