MOHAMMAD ASIF alias AZIZ ASIF MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 788/2020

[2025] HKCFI 5063

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 788 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

Introduction

1.  The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. He entered Hong Kong illegally by boat in June 2006. On 16 February 2011, he was arrested for illegally remaining in Hong Kong. The Applicant lodged a torture claim on 28 February 2011, which he withdrew in June 2011. His torture claim was re-opened subsequently, but was refused in the end.

2.  The Applicant then filed the non-refoulement claims under the Unified Screen Mechanism. On 22 June 2017, the Director of Immigration refused the application. The Applicant’s subsequent appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office was dismissed on 30 January 2018 (the “Board’s Decision”).

3.  By Form 86 filed on 28 April 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 21 July 2025. The Applicant was however absent from the hearing despite it was his request to have an oral hearing for the Leave Application.

4.  By the decision dated 22 August 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 3545) (the “Court Decision”), this Court dismissed the Leave Application on the ground that the Leave Application was filed significantly out of time and without any valid explanation for the delay, and 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 2 October 2025, the Applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal against the Court 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 13 October 2025 (the “Hearing”) and the Applicant attended in person. At the Hearing, when being asked about the delay in filing the Application, the Applicant simply said he has not received the Court Decision from the Court. He only found out the Court Decision online. He however confirmed that the address which the Court sent the Court Decision to is his valid residential address. Apart from the aforesaid, the Applicant indicated that he had nothing to say in respect of the Application.

Discussion

7.  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)

8.  In the present case, there was delay of about a month. As the Court Decision was issued to the Applicant at the address he provided, and which the Applicant confirmed at the Hearing to be his valid address, I do not accept the Applicant’s explanation that he has not received the Court Decision. Having said that, I shall still proceed to consider the merit of the intended appeal before deciding on the Application.

9.  In the Summons and in the supporting Affirmation, the Applicant did not provide any grounds in support of the intended appeal. Despite being given a further opportunity to make submissions in respect of the Application at the Hearing, the Applicant indicated that he had nothing to say in respect of the Application.

10.  I have considered the Court Decision together with the Board’s Decision in detail. The Board had considered and assessed the Applicant’s case and evidence comprehensively, and had provided valid 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, in particular in the light of the significant inconsistencies in the evidence (§12). I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Court Decision. Neither has the Applicant made any such allegations. Accordingly, I fail to see any prospect of success in the intended appeal.

Conclusion

11.  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.