SHAHZAD ALI v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT

CAMP 212/2026, [2026] HKCA 1677

On An Intended Appeal From [2026] HKCFI 1829 &

[2026] HKCFI 2723

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 212 OF 2026

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 608 OF 2026)

__________________

__________________

_____________________

JUDGMENT

_____________________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the order of Coleman J (as he then was, “the Judge”) dated 30 March 2026 (“the Order”) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review.

BASIC FACTS

2.  The background facts of this case have been set out in the decision of the Judge dated 30 March 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 1829, “the Decision”), and can be summarized shortly as follows.

3.  The Applicant is a Pakistani national.  He came to Hong Kong in around September 2019.  He was issued a one-year dependant visa as the dependant of his wife as sponsor.  Subsequently, he was granted extensions of stay until 23 July 2022 and 23 July 2025 respectively.

4.  In around March 2025, the Applicant and his wife separated.  When he applied for a further extension of stay on 21 July 2025, the application was made on the basis of his own merits (relying on the fact that he had taken Hong Kong as his only place of residence since arrival in September 2019, had lived a law-abiding life in Hong Kong, and had never relied on any assistance from the Government), in view of the fact that his wife had ceased to be his sponsor.  The Director rejected the application on 1 September 2025 (“the Initial Decision”).

5.  The Applicant filed an application for reconsideration.  The Director rejected the application on 9 March 2026 (“the Reconsideration Decision”, collectively “the Decisions”).

6.  On 20 March 2026, the Applicant filed a Form 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Initial Decision and Reconsideration Decision.  Two grounds of intended judicial review were advanced:

(1)  The Decisions were wrong in principle, and were procedurally unfair because the Director failed to follow proper procedures assessing his eligibility for extension of stay on his own merits when he had strong grounds for the application to be approved.

(2)  The Decisions were unreasonable and there was procedural unfairness by the Director when considering extenuating grounds which warranted exceptional consideration.

7.  On 30 March 2026, the Judge gave the Decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review.  The reasons for the Judge’s refusal to grant leave are fully set out at §§16-23 of the Decision for Ground (1), and §§27-28 of the Decision for Ground (2).

8.  The Judge also considered that there was at least a significant doubt as to whether the leave application had been brought timeously at all (see §§29-31 of the Decision).

9.  On 24 April 2026, the Applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal against the Order.  On 12 May 2026, the Judge refused to grant to the Applicant extension of time to appeal ([2026] HKCFI 2723, “the Leave Decision”).

10.  On 19 May 2026, the Applicant purportedly lodged a notice of appeal (“the Purported Notice of Appeal”) against the Order in the Court of Appeal, despite the fact that his application for extension of time to appeal had been dismissed by the Judge.  On 16 June 2026, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed the Applicant to take out a renewed application for extension of time to appeal on or before 29 June 2026, failing which the Purported Notice of Appeal would be referred to the Court of Appeal for dismissal without further notice.

11.  On 25 June 2026, the Applicant issued the present summons (“the Summons”) seeking an extension of time to appeal.  In his affirmation filed together with the Summons (“the Affirmation”), the Applicant alleged that he did not receive the letter from the High Court which contained the Decision, and it was not until 20 April 2026 when he attended the Immigration Department for making an application for deferral of departure that he became aware of the Decision.  He also said that he received a letter from the Bailiff Office (West Kowloon Law Courts Building) dated 22 May 2026, and he was handed the post containing the Decision when he attended the Bailiff Office on 27 May 2026, from which it became clear that the post had previously been returned to the Bailiff Office, and it was delivered to him only on 27 May 2026.

12.  The Applicant has not filed any submissions in support of his application, contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 25 June 2026.  Accordingly, he is deemed to have abandoned his right to rely on written submissions.

13.  Having considered the available documents before us, we consider that it is appropriate to deal with the Summons on paper without an oral hearing, pursuant to Order 59, r 14A(1) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A.

DISCUSSION

14.  We are prepared to accept that the Applicant has given a reasonable explanation for his delay, and will focus on the merits of his intended appeal.

15.  The Applicant has not provided any intended grounds of appeal in either the Summons or the Affirmation.  We shall nevertheless consider the 2 intended grounds of appeal raised in the Purported Notice of Appeal.

16.  Ground (a) contends that the Judge erred when he ruled that he (the Applicant) was unable to explain why he did not receive the Decision, the Order and the Form CALL-1.  The Applicant argues that it was not for him to know why he did not receive the letter, and it was apparent that he filed for leave to appeal out of time as soon as he became aware of the Decision.  This ground goes only to the Applicant’s explanation for the delay, but not the merits of his intended appeal or application for leave to apply for judicial review.  Further, the main reason why Judge refused to grant an extension of time for the Applicant to appeal was because he considered that there was no reasonably arguable merit in the intended appeal and thus there was no point in extending time to appeal (see §§11 and 12 of the Leave Decision).

17.  Ground (b) contends that the Judge erred when he ruled that “[the Applicant’s] points do not seem to [him] to identify any reasonably arguable public law ground of appeal with any realistic prospect of success.”  The Applicant argues that the points that he has raised are reasonably arguable because the Director has in its decision only considered the fact that his wife had refused to continue sponsoring his stay in Hong Kong, but other considerations were totally ignored especially when in his decision the Director stated that “we do not find strong extenuating grounds justifying our exceptional consideration on your case”.  The Applicant says that the court has the power to consider all the exceptional circumstances fairly and reasonably.

18.  The Applicant’s complaint under Ground (b) has been fully considered by the Judge at §§24 to 28 of the Decision, as follows:

“[24] Under this ground, the Applicant asserts that there exist exceptional, humanitarian and compassionate grounds to justify his extension of stay in Hong Kong, because his return to Pakistan would lead to his suffering from extreme hardship.

[25] The Applicant asserts that the Director failed to consider the extent of his injuries, especially since he has been on sick leave since 14 April 2025. He says his injuries are serious in nature, and that is the only reason why he has been granted over one year’s sick leave and that treatment is still ongoing.

[26] Hence the rejection of his application for extension of stay is, the Applicant asserts, ‘unfair’, and it ‘should have been approved’.

[27] Again, with respect, this ground merely puts forward the Applicant’s disagreement with the Decisions. As stated above, the Director is under no obligation to take into account humanitarian and compassionate grounds, and if he does so the weight to be given to them is a matter for him (absent an irrationality challenge).

[28]  In the Initial Decision the Director said in terms that no strong extenuating grounds were found to justify exceptional consideration. There is no basis to suggest that the Director has given irrational weight to any relevant matter in the decision-making process leading to the Initial Decision and/or the Reconsideration Decision.”

19.  Ground (b) is essentially based on the Applicant’s disagreement with the Judge’s decision.  This is not a valid ground of appeal.  The Applicant has failed to demonstrate any error in the Judge’s decision.

20.  We are satisfied that the Applicant’s intended appeal has no merit.  It is thus futile to grant any extension of time for the Applicant to appeal against the Order.

DISPOSITION

21.  The Summons is dismissed, with no order as to costs.