BAIG NASEEM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 172/2021

[2026] HKCFI 491

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 172 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Introduction

1.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan.  He arrived in Hong Kong illegally on 30 November 2006. 

2.  The Applicant made a torture claim on 24 March 2007.   The claim was rejected on 16 August 2013.  The Applicant did not appeal against the decision.  On 5 June 2013, the Applicant lodged a claim for non-refoulement under the Unified Screening Mechanism. 

3.  On 13 November 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 13 January 2021 (the “Board’s Decision”).

4.  By Form 86 filed on 18 February 2021, 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 20 October 2025 but the Applicant did not attend the hearing.   

5.  By the decision dated 20 November 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 5621) (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.

6.  By the Summons filed on 19 December 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 said hearing, when being asked about the delay in making the Application, the Applicant said he has never received the Court’s Decision. 

8.  The Applicant further contended that there have been further problems after the Board’s Decision.  He alleged that his wife and child were killed by the opposite party around 2 to 3 years ago.  Apart from that, the Applicant said 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 2 weeks.  In the Summons, the Applicant explained that he did not receive the Court’s Decision.  The Applicant requested the Court to update his address.  The Court’s Decision was issued to the Applicant at the address provided by the Applicant on the Form 86.  This was also the address confirmed by the Immigration Department.  The Applicant has not filed any Notice of Change of Address until he made the request at the hearing on 12 January 2026.  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).  In the premises, I do not accept that there is valid explanation for the delay. 

11.  Despite the aforesaid, 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.

12.  In the Summons and in the supporting Affirmation, the Applicant did not provide any meaningful grounds in support of the intended appeal.  The Applicant simply said his life is in danger in his home country and that decisions of the Immigration Department, the Board and the Court were unlawful.  The Applicant has failed to provide particulars or explain why such decisions were unlawful.

13.  At the hearing on 12 January 2026, the Applicant contended that there were further problems after the Board’s Decision (see §8 above).  In so far as there is change of circumstances as alleged, the proper course for the Applicant to take is to file a subsequent claim under section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap 115) based on any alleged change of circumstances, rather than applying for judicial review against the Board’s Decision.  The challenge to the Board’s Decision based on any “new” circumstances is misconceived.    In any event, the allegations made by the Applicant at the hearing on 12 January 2026 are not supported by any evidence.  Such contentions were not even made on oath.

14.  I have reviewed the Board’s Decision and the Court’s Decision carefully.  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 addressed all the grounds relied upon by the Applicant in the Leave Application (§§8-15 of the Court’s Decision).  I do not see any errors in the Court’s analysis and reasoning.  The Court came to the correct decision that there is no realistic prospect of success in the intended challenge to the Board’s Decision.  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

15.  As there is no valid 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.