BAIG MIRZA GHULAM SAMDANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 908/2021

[2026] HKCFI 3883

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 908 OF 2021

_____________

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

Summons

1.  By summons (“Summons”) dated 31 March 2026, the applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal against the order of this court (“Order”) dated 6 March 2026, dismissing the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). In the decision in the prescribed Form Call-1 of the same date (“Decision”) ([2026] HKCFI 1073), the court dismissed the Leave Application against the Appeal Board’s decision dated 11 June 2021 in respect of his appeals against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 18 January 2019 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court (“Rules”), an applicant may appeal to the Court of Appeal against an order refusing leave within 14 days after such refusal. The 14-day period for the applicant to appeal against the Order expired on 21 March 2026. Hence, the applicant’s intended appeal is late for 11 days.

3.  In giving effect to the underlying objectives of O.1A of the Rules, and to promote procedural economy, this court decides that it is expedient to dispose of the Summons on paper in lieu of a hearing.

The Law

4.  The applicable guidelines governing the discretion for deciding whether to allow an extension of time to appeal against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review are as follows. The court shall have regard to: (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the prospect of success of the intended appeal; and (iv) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted: see Re MK HCMP 2609/2016, 10 January 2017; Chu On Fong Winter v The Appeal Panel (Housing) HCMP 982/2017, 20 July 2017; Islam Raja Rais v Director of Immigration HCMP 881/2017, 26 June 2017; Re Gurang Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346; and Nguyen Thi Hong Thuy [2024] HKCA 1172.

Discussion

5.  The applicant did not provide any reason for the delay or advance any proposed grounds for his intended appeal in the supporting affirmation.

6.  Whilst I do not regard a delay of 11 days is a lengthy delay, the applicant shall still be required to provide a good reason for the delay. The applicant provided none.

7.  In the absence of any explanation for the delay and the absence of any grounds for the intended appeal, I refuse to exercise my discretion to grant an extension of time to the applicant to serve his appeal out of time.

8.  The Summons is therefore dismissed.