AHMED SAJJAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1344/2020

[2026] HKCFI 3879

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1344 OF 2020

_____________

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

Summons

1.  By summons (“Summons”) dated 15 December 2025, the applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal against the order of this court (“Order”) dated 26 November 2025, 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”) ([2025] HKCFI 5672), the court dismissed the Leave Application against the Appeal Board’s decision dated 3 April 2020 in respect of his appeals against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 28 November 2018 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 11 December 2025. Hence, the applicant’s intended appeal is late for 5 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 his supporting affirmation.

6.  Whilst I do not regard a delay of 5 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.