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

HCAL 1531/2020

[2026] HKCFI 2327

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1531 OF 2020

________________________

BETWEEN

________________

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

1.  By a summons issued on 25 February 2026 (“Summons”) supported by an affirmation of the same date (“Affirmation”) the Applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal my order dated 29 January 2026 (“Order”) wherein I had refused his application for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision describing itself as one of the Torture Claims Appeal Board(“TCAB”)/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“NRCPO”) made on 19 May 2020 (“BOR Decision”).

2.  In dealing with the application I have had regard below to the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the prospects of the intended appeal, and the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time is granted (see Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346; Nupur Mst [2018] HKCA 524; Nguyen Van Quyen [2025] HKCA 510).

3.  In the Summons and the Affirmation, the Applicant claimed that he did not receive the order, or any decision or judgment, from the court and asked for an extension of time because his problem still existed in his home country and he did not agree with the BOR Decision.

4.  As the 14-day period for the Applicant to appeal against the Order expired on 12 February 2026 (RHC O 53 r 3(4)), there is delay of some 13 days. I do not see that I have been given a satisfactory explanation for the delay, given that:

(1) The Applicant confirmed to the Court at the hearing on 21 August 2025 that his address was the same address to which the Notice of Hearing had been sent; and

(2) The two letters (including one that contained the Order and the CALL-1) that were subsequently sent by the Court to the Applicant at the same address have not been returned undelivered.

5.  In any event, I have had regard to the prospects of success of the intended appeal, which are important as the court will not grant an extension of time to pursue a hopeless appeal (Tran Van Anh [2025] HKCA 408).

6.  In my decision I had reviewed the BOR Decision with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, applying the enhanced Wednesbury standard, and bearing in mind the need for the high standard of fairness, and saw no reasonably arguable public law grounds to vitiate such and that justified the grant of leave.

7.  I do not see that there is any proper ground of appeal with any prospect of success. That the Applicant disagrees with the BOR Decision is clearly not a proper ground of appeal. The same goes for his claim that his problem still exists. Nor has he identified any basis (in the nature of an error of law, any failure to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court, or that I was plainly wrong) on which the Court of Appeal would reverse my decision (Nupur Mst, supra). neither here nor there.

8.  There is therefore no prospect of the appeal succeeding, and it would be futile to extend time and would clearly needlessly prejudice the Respondent were I to grant the Applicant an extension of time to pursue a hopeless appeal.

9.  Given the above, I refuse the application and dismiss the Summons.