ARIF MIAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1884/2020

[2026] HKCFI 3061

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1884 OF 2020

________________________

BETWEEN

________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

1.  By my decision dated 30 September 2025, I refused to grant leave to the Application to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 10 September 2020 which refused the Applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim.

2.  By a summons filed on 12 March 2026, the Applicant seeks 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 14 October 2025, the Applicant is out of time in his intended appeal by almost 5 months.

3.  The applicable principles are trite: the court shall have regard to (a) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason 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.  As it turned out, according to the Applicant’s submissions attached to his affirmation filed in support of this application, the Applicant was in Tai Tam Gap Correctional Institute serving a sentence until 20 December 2025 and therefore, he submitted, he was not aware of my decision of 30 September 2025.

5.  However, it was not made clear when he came to know of my decision and why it took him until 12 March 2026, i.e. almost 3 months after his release, to file the summons herein.

6.  Be that as it may, in the said submission the Applicant did not put forth any proposed grounds of appeal, or point to any particular error in the decision he seeks to appeal against.

7.  At the hearing for the summons on 11 May 2026, the Applicant was brought to attend by the Correctional Services. When asked if he had anything to add, he only reiterated that his life would be at risk if he was returned, that he still carried marks on his body from assaults against him in 1995, and that he has applied for Habea Corpus recently. Unfortunately, none of these goes to further the merits in his intended appeal.

8.  I therefore fail to see any prospect of success in his intended appeal and it would be pointless to extend the time for the same. I dismiss this application.