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

HCAL 2412/2020

[2026] HKCFI 509

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2412 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

Introduction

1.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan.  The basis of the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim is that he fears of being harmed or killed by a man called Nadeem due to political dispute.     

2.  On 28 June 2018, 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 2 December 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”).

3.  By Form 86 filed on 9 December 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 25 August 2025 and the Applicant attended in person.  At the hearing, the Applicant said he had hepatitis B and was receiving regular medical treatment in Hong Kong.  Apart from that, the Applicant indicated that he had nothing to say in respect of the Leave Application. 

4.  By the decision dated 9 October 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 4694) (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 10 November 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 has never received the Court’s Decision.  He was simply told by the Immigration Department that he has to leave Hong Kong and he accordingly made the Application.      

7.  The Applicant further stated that he needs more time to receive hepatitis treatment in Hong Kong.  He said he has medical appointment on 21 January 2026.  He claimed that his wife also has hepatitis issue and is receiving treatment here.  Apart from the above, 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 two weeks.  I have reservation on the Applicant’s explanation that he has never received the Court’s Decision.  However, 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, the Applicant asked for leave to advance “a new sole ground of appeal”.  There is no elaboration on what the new ground of appeal is.  The Applicant also did not make any submissions in respect of the Application on 12 January 2026.

11.  In the supporting Affirmation, the Applicant contended that the Court’s Decision was reached unfairly.  He said he was not given the opportunity to clarify his case or present his circumstances regarding the situation in his home country.  He said he fears of being killed or harmed if he is to return to his home country. 

12.  There is no merit in the Applicant’s contention.  In so far as the Applicant contended that the Court’s Decision was unfair, such contention is vague and general, and the Applicant has failed to particularise or elaborate on the point.  I do not consider such general and bare assertion meritorious. 

13.  In so far as the Applicant contended that he was not given the opportunity to present his case, such contention is plainly unmeritorious.  As indicated above, the Applicant was given a fair opportunity to state his grounds in support of the Leave Application in the Form 86 and/or in the supporting Affirmation.  He was further given the opportunity to present his case at the hearing on 25 August 2025, but he indicated that he had nothing to say in respect of the Leave Application (save and except his medical condition).  Even at the hearing on 12 January 2026, the Applicant said he had nothing to say in respect of the Application save and except to inform the Court of his medical issues.

14.  Finally, in respect of his fear or being harmed or killed if he is to return to his country, the Board had comprehensively considered the evidence and ruled against the Applicant. In the absence of any specific errors identified by the Applicant, I fail to see how such general contention can possibly succeed in the intended appeal.

15.  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 came to the correct decision that there is no realistic prospect of success in the intended challenge of the Board’s Decision (§§7-8 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

16.  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.