USMAN HUMAYON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 638/2020

[2025] HKCFI 5058

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 638 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

Introduction

1.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. He entered Hong Kong illegally by boat from Chinese Mainland in late 2011. On 13 October 2012, he was arrested by the police and was subsequently convicted and imprisoned for twelve months for remaining in Hong Kong without authority.

2.  Subsequently, the Applicant filed the non-refoulement claims. On 13 August 2018, the Director of Immigration refused the Applicant’s application. The Applicant’s subsequent appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office was dismissed on 26 March 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”).

3.  By Form 86 filed on 14 April 2020, 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 12 March 2025 and the Applicant attended in person. The Applicant did not provide any meaningful grounds in support of the Leave Application in the Form 86 or in the supporting Affirmation. At the hearing, the Applicant indicated that he had been married to a Hong Kong resident in 2015, and they had a son who was born in 2022. The Applicant indicated that he had applied for dependent visa but was rejected. Apart from the aforesaid, the Applicant had nothing to say in respect of the Leave Application.

4.  By the decision dated 13 June 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 2316) (the “Court Decision”), this Court dismissed the Leave Application on the ground that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success.

5.  By the Summons filed on 3 July 2025, the Applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal against the Court 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 11 July 2025. At the said hearing, the Applicant indicated that he had applied for legal aid on 3 July 2025 in respect of the Application. I therefore made an order that the Application be adjourned for 42 days from 3 July 2025 pending the Applicant’s application for legal aid. On 4 September 2025, the Applicant’s application for legal aid was refused. As a result, a hearing was fixed on 13 October 2025 (the “Hearing”), and the Applicant attended in person.

7.  At the Hearing, when being asked about the delay in filing the Application, the Applicant said it was because he did not check the mailbox before. Apart from the aforesaid, 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 a few days. Whilst the delay was caused by the Applicant’s own failure to check his mailbox, as the delay was relatively short, the Court will be prepared to grant indulgence if there is merit in the intended appeal. I shall therefore 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, the Applicant indicated that he had nothing to say in respect of the Application.

11.  I have considered the Court Decision together with the Board’s Decision in detail. The Board had considered and assessed the Applicant’s case and evidence comprehensively, and had provided reasons in support of its decision. The Court had reviewed the Board’s Decision and came to the correct decision that there is no realistic prospect of success in the intended challenge of the Board’s Decision (§7). I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Court 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 prospect of success in the intended appeal, I refuse to extend the time for the appeal. The Application is hereby dismissed.