TEHSEEN YASEEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 967/2021

[2025] HKCFI 1094

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 967 OF 2021

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

THE APPLICATION

1.  This is the Applicant’s application by summons filed on 18 February 2025 for extension of time to appeal the order of this Court (the “Order”) dated 16 January 2025 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (the “leave application”) of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 7 July 2021.

2.  The application arose under the following circumstances. When filing his leave application (Form 86), the Applicant gave an address at “XXX Flat C3, 3/F, XXX House” (the “C3 Address”). He had requested an oral hearing. A hearing was scheduled for him. Prior to the hearing, the court staff verified the Applicant’s address with the Immigration Department and was advised that his address was at “XXX Flat C, 3/F, XXX House” (the “Flat C Address”). Notice of hearing was then sent to the Applicant at the Flat C Address. The Applicant did not appear at the hearing. His leave application was determined on paper and refused. The Form CALL-1 and the order (the “Order”) as well as subsequent and consequential correspondence and orders were then sent to him at the Flat C Address.

3.  On 17 January 2025, the notice of hearing was returned and marked “incomplete address”. On 6 February 2025, the Form CALL-1 and Order were returned and also marked “incomplete address”. On 12 February 2025, the Immigration Department reconfirmed that the Applicant’s address is at the Flat C Address.

4.  Then, on 18 February 2025, the Court received the Applicant’s summons seeking leave to appeal out of time. He was six days’ late. He claimed he had never received the Form CALL-1 or the Order and that he was informed about the Court’s decision by an immigration officer. In view of the events set out above, the Court wholly accepts his evidence. The Applicant is entitled to extension of time to appeal.

5.  However, a better and more efficacious means of disposal is for this Court to exercise its discretion under Order 2 rule 1(2) of the Rules of the High Court to set aside its Form CALL-1 and the Order (including any consequential order) on its own initiative and re-fix his leave application for hearing. This will save the Applicant the time and trouble in invoking the appellate machinery of the court and save the Court of Appeal’s time and trouble in having to determine his appeal. The result under either course will be the same and is inevitable.

6.  Accordingly, this Court makes the above order and dismisses his application for extension of time to appeal the Order which has now been set aside.