QAISAR NAVEED v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 186/2025, [2026] HKCA 154

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 716

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 186 OF 2025

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2497 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1.  By a Summons filed on 16 September 2025 (“Summons”), the Applicant applies for an extension of time to appeal against the order (“Dismissal Order”) of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“Judge”) dated 11 March 2025 by which his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) dated 27 May 2019 was dismissed, and extension of time was refused. By that decision, the Board upheld the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) to reject the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  The Summons is supported by a short affirmation of the Applicant (“Affirmation”) filed also on 16 September 2025. The Applicant lodged written submissions in support of this application on 29 September 2025.

3.  Having considered the documents, this Court is of the view that it is appropriate to determine this application on paper without a hearing pursuant to Order 59, rule 14A of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A (“RHC”).

4.  The Applicant had 14 days from the date of the Judgment below (11 March 2025) (“Judgment”) to appeal against the same (see Order 53, rule 3(4) of RHC). The 14-day period expired on 25 March 2025. The Applicant filed his summons below for extension of time on 20 May 2025. He was out of time by 8 weeks.

5.  It is trite that in deciding whether to extend time to appeal, the court will take into account the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the chances of success of the intended appeal, and the degree of prejudice to the other party if an extension of time is granted. The prospects of success of an intended appeal is important because the court will not grant an extension of time for a hopeless appeal: Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, at [19].

6.  In his affirmation in support of the extension of time application before the Judge[1], the Applicant explained that the delay in appealing was due to the fact that he did not receive the Judgment because he was in detention.

7.  In respect of the prospects of success of the Applicant’s intended appeal, the general approach of this court in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases has been set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]. In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, this Court would only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant. If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed. This Court’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst at [14(6)]).

8.  Further, the assessment of evidence, Country of Origin information, risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board and the Director. The court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there is an error of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board: Re Kartini [2019] HKCA 1022.

9.  In his submissions, the Applicant reiterated that his claim is true, and stated that his enemies are rich and powerful, still looking for him and threatening his family. They have good connections with the police, such that the police cannot assist the Applicant and he cannot get justice in his home country. However, the Applicant did not raise any grounds of appeal or identify any errors in the Judgment. Thus, there is no basis to grant an extension of time to appeal.

10.  For completeness, this court has considered carefully the Judge’s reasons for dismissing the Leave Application and is unable to see any arguable ground of appeal against the same.

11.  In the premises, the Summons is dismissed with no order as to costs.