KHAN IMRAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 373/2021

[2026] HKCFI 2141

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 373 OF 2021

____________

____________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

Background

1.  By way of summons filed on 12 February 2026 (“the Summons”), the applicant applies for an extension of time to appeal against my order made on 28 January 2026, which dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 29 January 2021.

2.  Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A, stipulates that “Where an application for leave is refused by a judge …, the applicant may appeal against the judge’s order to the Court of Appeal within 14 days after such order”.

3.  In Re Li Jing [2015] 2 HKLRD 933, it was held that the time for lodging an appeal against the refusal of granting leave to apply for judicial review started to run from the date of the making of the order, not from the date when the sealed order was issued, nor from the date when the sealed order was mailed, and no account should be taken of the fact that the applicant received the sealed order late (see also Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226).

4.  As my order was made on 28 January 2026, the last day for the applicant to lodge an appeal was on 11 February 2026. Thus, the time for appealing against my order has expired, and the applicant requires leave from this court to appeal out of time.

The applicable law

5.  In considering whether to extend time for appealing a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the court will take into account: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted (see Jagg Singh v Torture Claims Appeal Board and another [2020] HKCA 844).

6.  However, the crucial consideration in such an application is whether the applicant can show that there is a reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review (see Re Gurung Min Bahadur, supra), and the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued (see Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702).

Discussion

7.  In the Summons, the applicant claimed that he received the order on 11 February 2026 and as he had no idea about the decision, he showed it to his friend who told him that it was out of time to appeal. However, he did not give any reason as to why he had received the order late. There was also no ground given for his intended appeal in the Summons, save that the applicant alleged that he could not return to his home country because his problem still existed and if he returned, he would be killed by his enemies.

8.  In his supporting affirmation dated 12 February 2026, the applicant merely mentioned that he wanted to appeal because he did not agree with my decision, but he did not give any particulars as to why he disagreed with my decision. He just said that his problem was severe and if he returned to his home country, he would be killed by his enemies.

9.  At the hearing of the Summons on 10 April 2026, the applicant said that he received my decision only a few days ago in April 2026. When I pointed out to him that it was not what he said in the Summons, he then said that he received it on 11 February 2026 but he was confused. He also gave confusing accounts in respect of the address at which he received the order or my decision by post. In any event, there was no explanation given as to why he would have received the order late.

10.  When the applicant was asked for his grounds of appeal, he merely said that the situation in his country was bad and he wanted to stay in Hong Kong.

11.  It is clear that the applicant did not provide any good reason for his lateness in lodging the intended appeal, nor any valid ground of appeal at all.

12.  For this application to be successful, the applicant must demonstrate that this court had made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before this court or was otherwise plainly wrong (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524).

13.  The applicant failed to demonstrate any of the above. Hence, there is simply no valid ground for the intended appeal or the intended judicial review.

14.  In the circumstances, there is no proper excuse for the applicant’s delay in lodging the appeal and there is no reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review. I am not prepared to grant any extension of time for the applicant to pursue such a hopeless appeal.

Conclusion

15.  For reasons aforesaid, the Summons is dismissed.