AHMAD ADEEL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 2413/2020

[2026] HKCFI 1680

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2413 OF 2020

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 17 March 2022 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in rejecting/dismissing his non-refoulement claim upon finding that none of the grounds put forward by him reasonably arguable for his intended challenge, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the process before the Director of Immigration (“Director”) or the Board or in their decisions, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success in his intended application.

2.  The Applicant now by a summons issued on 16 December 2025 seeks leave to appeal against that decision out of time, for which I did not find necessary to require any hearing, and as the 14-day period after the decision within which to file his appeal under Order 53 Rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A expired on 31 March 2022, and hence he was some 3 years and 8 months late with his intended appeal.

3.  In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the Court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (iv) the prejudice to the respondent if 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 Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346.

4.  In the Applicant’s case, a delay of 3 years and 8 months must be considered as extremely substantial and inordinate, for which he merely provided in his affirmation his reasons why he had earlier withdrawn his judicial review application but later changed his mind and wanted to proceed, all of which had in fact already been dealt with in the Court’s decision in refusing to grant leave for him to challenge the Board’s decision, and that none of which has anything to do with his serious delay with his intended appeal against the Court’s decision.

5.  More importantly, the Applicant has failed to put forth any proper or valid draft or proposed grounds of appeal, or any particulars of any error in the decision or why it may reasonably be argued that the decision was unfair or unreasonable either in his summons or in his affirmation, and in the absence of any error in the decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not see any prospect of success in his intended appeal.

6.  In the premises, and for the reasons given, it would be futile to extend time for what appears to be a hopeless appeal. Accordingly, I refuse to grant leave to the Applicant to appeal out of time, and dismiss his summons.