MANJINDER SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 2306/2020

[2026] HKCFI 898

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2306 OF 2020

________________

BETWEEN

________________

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

Introduction

1.  By summons (“Summons”) dated 4 November 2025, the applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the order dated 15 October 2025 (“Order”), dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 18 November 2020 dismissing the applicant’s appeal against a decision of the Director of Immigration dated 10 October 2019 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  Before the scheduled hearing for the Summons on 3 February 2025, the court had sent to the applicant by ordinary post to his last known address a notice of hearing dated 14 January 2026 with a reminder of the consequence of absence[1]. The applicant did not turn up at the hearing. Telephone calls were made to the applicant’s given telephone number before the hearing, but to no avail. The information before this court shows that the said notice of hearing has not been returned undelivered through the post.

3.  In the circumstances, this court will dispose of the Summons according to the materials already placed before the court.

The law

4.  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 (after the order of the court). The deadline for the applicant to file his appeal expired on 30 October 2025. The Summons was therefore late for 4 days.

5.  The guidelines governing the discretion for an extension of time to appeal against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review shall 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

6.  A delay of 4 days is not lengthy. Nonetheless, the applicant shall still be required to provide an explanation for the delay. In his affirmation in support of the Summons, the applicant stated that he did not receive any correspondence from the court regarding the dismissal of the Leave Application. He has not provided any grounds in support of his intended appeal.

7.  A delay of 4 days can be excused had the applicant provided a credible reason for the short delay. However, I am unable to accept the applicant’s allegation that he had not received the Order of the court dismissing the Leave Application. This is because the Order together with the court’s decision in Form Call-1 were posted to the applicant’s last known address on 15 October 2025 have not been returned up till now. The applicant’s assertion that he had not received the Order and the decision implies that the applicant had not read the court’s decision when he filed the Summons. Without having any knowledge of the reasons of the court in dismissing the Leave Application, the applicant’s intended appeal appears to be not an authentic challenge to the Order.

8.  For the reasons stated above and in particular, and the complete absence of any proposed grounds to support his intended appeal, this court is disinclined to exercise its discretion to grant any extension of time to the applicant to appeal against the Order, and therefore accordingly dismiss the Summons.