AHMED GAMAL IBRAHIM GAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 314/2018

[2026] HKCFI 434

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 314 OF 2018

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 8 October 2019, I refused to extend time to the seriously late application of the Applicant for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in dismissing his appeal against the refusal of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) to re-open his non-refoulement claim upon finding no good reason for his serious delay, 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 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 18 August 2025 seeks leave to appeal against that decision out of time, 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 22 October 2019, and hence he was some 5 years and 9 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 5 years and 9 months must be considered as extremely substantial and inordinate, for which he explained at the hearing of his summons that at the material time he was going through some serious problems in his marriage, and then the COVID-19 pandemic occurred that he lost interest in everything and forgotten about his intended appeal until recently that he realized that it was already out of time.

5.  The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 8 October 2019 to the Applicant’s then reported address without being returned through undelivered post, and while it was unfortunate that he was then going through some difficult patches of his life if indeed that was the case, but neither events can be accepted as any valid reason or justification for his such serious delay when the COVID-19 pandemic in reality already ended several years ago in 2023. In the circumstances I am not satisfied that the Applicant has provided any good or valid reason for his such serious delay.

6.  More importantly, the Applicant has also 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 in which he just repeated his claim as before, nor was he able to raise any possible ground for his intended appeal at the hearing of his summons. As such, 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.

7.  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.