AHAMED HASIB v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 96/2020

[2025] HKCFI 5275

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 96 OF 2020

____________

BETWEEN

____________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

Background

1.  By way of summons filed on 4 September 2025 (“the Summons”), the applicant applies for an extension of time to appeal against my order made on 24 June 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 (“the Board”) dated 13 December 2019.

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 24 June 2025, the last day for the applicant to lodge an appeal was on 8 July 2025. The time for appealing against my order has therefore 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 alleged that he did not receive the judgment from the court and it was out of time to appeal when he came to know about it from the Immigration Officer. He also alleged that his problem was very severe and his life was under threat of his enemies.

8.  In his supporting affirmation dated 3 September 2025, the applicant alleged that he did not receive any judgment from the court and when the Immigration Officer informed him, it was out of time to appeal. He also alleged that his life would not be safe if he goes back to his home country and he would be killed by his enemies. The applicant added that “The decision makers did not scrutinize my claim in the Appeal Board as usual of the Director of Immigration”.

9.  At the hearing of the Summons on 22 October 2025, the applicant claimed that he did not receive the court’s letter but the Immigration Officer informed him about the court’s decision about 2 months ago. However, the applicant confirmed that the address used by the court to send the decision to him was correct and he still resides at that address. He in fact received the Notice of Hearing for the Summons at that address, but he did not know why the court’s letter had gone missing.

10.  When I asked the applicant for his grounds of the intended appeal, the applicant said that he wants to stay here as his children are going to school in Hong Kong. He also said that his family’s case for non-refoulement protection is still ongoing and he wants to make his case together with them and join their application so that he can stay with them. He had nothing further to say save that he wants to stay here with his family.

11.  It is clear that the applicant offered no satisfactory explanation for his lateness in making the intended appeal. When his address is correct and he could receive the Notice of Hearing, there is no reason for the applicant not to have received the court’s letter enclosing the court’s decision. There is no evidence to support his mere allegation that the letter had gone missing. Thus, I cannot accept the applicant’s explanation in this regard.

12.  In any event, the applicant failed to advance any ground for the intended appeal in the Summons, his supporting affirmation and at the hearing on 22 October 2025. The applicant’s allegation that his life would be in danger if he returns to his home country cannot be a ground for the intended appeal or the intended judicial review. His allegation that the decision makers did not scrutinize his claim was just a bare accusation without any particulars. It cannot amount to any valid ground for the intended appeal or the intended judicial review either.

13.  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).

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

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

Conclusion

16.  For reasons aforesaid, the Summons is dismissed.