BUTT ZEESHAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 110/2021

[2026] HKCFI 517

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 110 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

Introduction

1.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan.  He illegally entered Hong Kong on 9 September 2019, and surrendered to the Immigration Department on 12 September 2019.  The Applicant then lodged the non-refoulement claim.     

2.  On 2 March 2020, the Director of Immigration refused the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.  The Applicant’s subsequent appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) was dismissed on 18 January 2021 (the “Board’s Decision”).

3.  By Form 86 filed on 1 February 2021, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the Board’s Decision (the “Leave Application”).  The hearing of the Leave Application took place on 13 October 2025 and the Applicant attended in person.  The Applicant however indicated at the hearing that he had nothing to say in respect of the Leave Application, despite having requested an oral hearing himself. 

4.  By the decision dated 19 November 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 5518) (the “Court’s Decision”), this Court dismissed the Leave Application on the ground that the Applicant’s intended challenge to the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success.

5.  By the Summons filed on 15 December 2025, the Applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal against the Court’s Decision, as the 14‑day period for him to file the appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court had expired (the “Application”).

6.  The Application was heard on 12 January 2026 and the Applicant attended in person.  At the hearing, when being asked about the delay in filing the Application, the Applicant said he received the Court’s Decision late.    

7.  Apart from that, the Applicant indicated that he had nothing to say in respect of the Application.

Discussion

8.  In considering whether to extend the time to appeal, it is trite that the court will take into account: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason(s) for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the degree of prejudice to the other party if an extension of time is granted.  The prospect of success of an intended appeal is important.  The court will not grant an extension of time to appeal for a hopeless appeal to be pursued.  (see Re Mushtaq Imran Ali [2025] HKCA 705, at §§16-17)

9.  In the present case, there was delay of about 2 weeks.  The Applicant simply said he received the Court’s Decision late.  He had however failed to explain whether the late receipt was due to his own fault.  In the absence of any further explanation, I do not accept that there is valid explanation for the delay.  Nevertheless, given the delay was relatively short, I am prepared to grant indulgence if there is merit in the intended appeal.  I shall thus proceed to consider the merit of the intended appeal before deciding on the Application.

10.  In the Summons and in the supporting Affirmation, the Applicant did not provide any grounds in support of the intended appeal.  Despite being given a further opportunity to make submissions in respect of the Application at the hearing on 12 January 2026, the Applicant indicated that he had nothing to say in respect of the Application.

11.  I have considered the Court’s Decision together with the Board’s Decision in detail.  The Board had considered and assessed the Applicant’s situation comprehensively and had provided reasons in support of its decision.  The Court had reviewed the Board’s Decision and addressed all the grounds relied upon by the Applicant in the Leave Application (§§7-15 of the Court’s Decision).  I see no errors in the Court’s analysis and reasoning.  The Court came to the correct decision that there is no realistic prospect of success in the intended challenge to the Board’s Decision.  I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Court’s Decision.  Neither has the Applicant made any such allegations.  Accordingly, I fail to see any prospect of success in the intended appeal. 

Conclusion

12.  As there is no valid explanation for the delay, and more importantly, no prospect of success in the intended appeal, I refuse to extend the time for the appeal.  The Application is hereby dismissed.