KHAN ZULFIQAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1177/2020

[2026] HKCFI 507

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1177 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

Introduction

1.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan.  He entered Hong Kong illegally on 23 August 2018, and surrendered to the Immigration Department on 27 August 2018.      

2.  The Applicant first made the non-refoulement claim by written representation on 7 September 2018. He subsequently submitted a Non-refoulement Claim Form on 21 January 2019.   

3.  On 22 February 2019, 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 10 June 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”).

4.  By Form 86 filed on 15 June 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 28 July 2025 but the Applicant did not attend the hearing.  The Applicant did not provide any grounds in support of the Leave Application in the Form 86.  In the supporting Affirmation, the Applicant simply stated that he did not agree with the Board’s Decision and that his life will be in danger if he goes back to Pakistan.  The Applicant did not explain why the Board’s Decision was erroneous. 

5.  By the decision dated 4 September 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 4018) (the “Court’s 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.

6.  By the Summons filed on 22 October 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”).

7.  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 did not receive the Court’s Decision as he has changed address.  He said he got the Court’s Decision subsequently from his friend.    

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

Discussion

9.  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)

10.  In the present case, there was delay of about a month.  In the supporting Affirmation, the Applicant explained that he did not receive the Court’s Decision.  At the hearing on 12 January 2026, the Applicant further explained that he had changed address and so he was only informed of the Court’s Decision subsequently by his friend.  The Applicant however has not filed any notice of change of address with the Court to date.  I have reservation about the truthfulness of the Applicant’s explanation.  There is no documentary evidence in support of the Applicant’s alleged change of address at the relevant time.  In any event, it is the duty of a litigant to give the Court an address to which correspondence or notice can come to his attention in a timely manner.  The consequence of any delay or failure occasioned by the ineffectiveness of such an address would fall on the shoulder of the litigant (Re Hasmi Rizwan Imran [2018] HKCA 439, at §15).

11.  Despite the lack of satisfactory explanation for the delay, I shall still proceed to consider the merit of the intended appeal before deciding on the Application.

12.  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.

13.  I have considered the Court’s Decision together with the Board’s Decision in detail.  The Board had plainly 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 came to the correct decision that there is no realistic prospect of success in the intended challenge of the Board’s Decision (§7 thereof).  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

14.  As there is no satisfactory 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.