FARHAD MOHAMMAD ABDUL KARIM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 2146/2020

[2026] HKCFI 2974

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2146 OF 2020

____________

BETWEEN

____________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

Background

1.  By way of summons filed on 24 February 2026 (“the Summons”), the applicant applies for an extension of time to appeal against my order made on 17 December 2025, which dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 5 October 2020.

2.  Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A, stipulates that “Where an application for leave is refused by a judge …, the applicant may appeal against the judge’s order to the Court of Appeal within 14 days after such order”.

3.  In Re Li Jing [2015] 2 HKLRD 933, it was held that the time for lodging an appeal against the refusal of granting leave to apply for judicial review started to run from the date of the making of the order, not from the date when the sealed order was issued, nor from the date when the sealed order was mailed, and no account should be taken of the fact that the applicant received the sealed order late (see also Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226).

4.  As my order was made on 17 December 2025, the last day for the applicant to lodge an appeal was on 31 December 2025. Thus, the time for appealing against my order has expired, and the applicant requires leave from this court to appeal out of time.

The applicable law

5.  In considering whether to extend time for appealing a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the court will take into account: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted (see Jagg Singh v Torture Claims Appeal Board and another [2020] HKCA 844).

6.  However, the crucial consideration in such an application is whether the applicant can show that there is a reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review (see Re Gurung Min Bahadur, supra), and the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued (see Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702).

Discussion

7.  In the Summons, the applicant did not mention any reason for his delay in lodging the intended appeal, nor any ground of appeal, but sought leave to advance a new sole ground of appeal without specifying what it was.

8.  In his supporting affirmation dated 24 February 2026, the applicant gave two reasons for his delay, namely: (1) he was unaware of the rules regarding the 14-day time limit as he was a litigant in person, illiterate and unrepresented; and (2) he did not receive any correspondence from the court regarding the judicial review being refused. The applicant also stated in his affirmation that my decision was reached unfairly without allowing him an opportunity to clarify his case and the situation in his country, which presumably is his ground of appeal.

9.  At the hearing of the Summons on 14 May 2026, when I asked the applicant why he was late in appealing, he said that he never received my decision dated 17 December 2025 even up to the time of the hearing on 14 May 2026. He only saw my decision online in January or February 2026. He explained that he had moved to another address, but he could not receive any mail at his new address. He could only use a PO Box to receive mails.

10.  When I asked the applicant for his grounds of appeal, he merely said that he could not go back to his country because of the current situation, which is life threatening. He has a family in Hong Kong as he has married a lady who is a Hong Kong resident and his application for visa to stay here is almost at the end. His wife had an accident and has been sick for the last 5 months. Hence, he cannot leave her to go back to his country.

11.  When I asked the applicant why he said in his affirmation that I did not allow him an opportunity to clarify his case and the situation in his country, he said that it was a misunderstanding and I did give him time to speak last time. He further said that he just wanted to apply because he had applied so many times and his case was not accepted by the court. He wanted help and understanding from this court, as he needed to take care of and stay with his wife.

12.  The explanations given by the applicant for his delay were unsatisfactory. Ignorance of the time limit is generally not an excuse, even though he is a litigant in person and illiterate. The applicant has an obligation to report his new residential address to the Immigration Department whenever he has changed his address. He should have also informed this court when he changed his residential address. If his residential address cannot be used to receive mails, then he should have provided a correspondence address too. When he did not report the change of his address, it was entirely his fault in making himself not contactable. He cannot use his own fault as an excuse to seek for extension of time.

13.  More importantly, the applicant did not give any valid ground for his intended appeal. As aforesaid, the applicant admitted that it was a misunderstanding when he said in his affirmation that I did not allow him an opportunity to clarify his case and the situation in his country, and he agreed that I did give him time to speak at the hearing of his leave application.

14.  In fact, the applicant’s case first came up for hearing on 23 September 2025. He was late in attending the hearing and the interpreter had left. The applicant said to me that he required an interpreter to proceed with his case and hence I adjourned the case to another date to be fixed so that an interpreter could be arranged for him. The applicant’s case was then heard again on 13 November 2025 when an interpreter was present to assist him.

15.  During the hearing on 13 November 2025, I did ask the applicant to elaborate on the grounds for his intended judicial review as laid out in a document with the title “GROUNDS ON WHICH RELIEF IS SOUGHT” annexed to his Form 86 and in his supporting affirmation dated 27 October 2020, but the applicant simply said that he could not remember what were written there.

16.  After the documents were translated to him by the interpreter, the applicant told me that the Torture Claims Appeal Board did not follow the law properly, he did not have enough time to prepare for the appeal, he did not have any legal assistance in the appeal proceedings and hence the procedures were unfair to him. The applicant then asked me to reconsider his claim, as he had his family here and it was not safe for him to return to Bangladesh.

17.  Thus, there is absolutely no truth in the applicant’s allegation that I did not allow him an opportunity to clarify his case and the situation in his country. Apart from the said allegation, the applicant did not mention anything else as to why my decision was reached unfairly. It is clear that the applicant cannot substantiate his alleged ground of appeal in saying that my decision was reached unfairly.

18.  For this application to be successful, the applicant must demonstrate that this court had made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before this court or was otherwise plainly wrong (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524).

19.  The applicant failed to demonstrate any of the above. Hence, there is simply no valid ground for the intended appeal or the intended judicial review.

20.  In the circumstances, there is no proper excuse for the applicant’s delay in lodging the appeal and there is no reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review. I am not prepared to grant any extension of time for the applicant to pursue such a hopeless appeal.

Conclusion

21.  For reasons aforesaid, the Summons is dismissed.