NAWAZ MUHAMMAD FAISAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1385/2020

[2026] HKCFI 2296

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1385 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Introduction

1.  By a decision in the prescribed form “CALL-1”, dated 5 December 2025 (“Decision”), this court dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”)  against the Appeal Board’s decision dated 18 June 2020.  As the applicant had not made any request for a hearing when he filed the Leave Application, this court therefore determined his Leave Application without a hearing.

2.  On 5 December 2025, the court sent the Decision by ordinary post to the applicant’s address updated by the Immigration Department on 15 August 2025.  The address provided by the Immigration Department was an address at 59 Prince Edward Road, West Kowloon (“Updated Address”). The posting of the document to the Updated Address has not been returned undelivered.

3.  Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(4)  of the Rules of the High Court, the time limit for an appeal to the Court of Appeal is 14 days after the order of the court.  The deadline for the applicant to file his appeal against the Decision would have expired on 20 December 2025.

4.  After a delay of 9 days, the applicant issued the present summons dated 29 December 2025 (“Summons”)  to apply for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the court’s order. At the hearing of the Summons, the applicant appeared in person and made submissions.

The Law

5.  The applicable guidelines governing the discretion of 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

6.  In the affirmation in support of the Summons, the applicant stated that the reason why he was late was because he received the Decision and the order late after they were sent to a wrong address.

7.  At the hearing, the applicant elaborated further regarding the wrong address. According to the applicant, the Updated Address was the address of his friend. However, since his discharge from the Immigration Department’s Castle Peak Detention Centre, he moved to his present address which was the address stated in the Summons at 61 Prince Edward Road, West Kowloon (“Present Address”).

8.  Since he has started living in the Present Address for so long, the court asked him why he did not inform the Immigration Department of his Present Address when he went to his regular reporting to the Immigration Department. He told the court that he had indeed provided the Present Address to the Immigration Department. However, they did not do the updating.

9.  When the court asked the applicant how he received the Decision. He said that an acquaintance who lived in the Updated Address received it and passed it to him.  By the time they were given to him, the time to appeal had already expired.

10.  In considering the length of delay, I believe that a delay of 9 days cannot be described as lengthy.  Whilst I accept the applicant’s explanation that he had in fact received the Decision late, however, I do not find that it constitutes good reason.

11.  The Decision and the order were delivered to the applicant to the Updated Address and had not been returned undelivered. It was confirmed by the applicant that he had in fact received the documents albeit late. The service of the Decision and the Order was regular.

12.  I believe that the delay was solely caused by the applicant’s failure to inform the Immigration Department to update his address. It is undisputed that whenever he went to report to the immigration officer, he was required to write down a most recent address. This requirement shows the importance of informing the Immigration Department of any change of address. However, as shown form the Form 8, (which is the form for recognizance), the applicant’s address is still stated to be the Updated Address.

13.  The applicant insisted that he had indeed provided the Present Address to the immigration officer. He blamed the Immigration Officer in having failed to ask for his Present Address. I do not accept this explanation. Updating of address is the responsibility of the applicant.

14.  The Form 8 that the applicant showed to the court was dated May 2025, and the Updated Address as shown is clearly incorrect. However, I believe the applicant had not informed the Immigration Department of the error.  The applicant was clearly aware of the error in the address stated in Form 8.  By not taking an active responsibility to inform the Immigration Department of the error, I find that the delay was solely occasioned by the applicant’s own fault.

Conclusion

15.  Despite the fact that the applicant has read the Decision, the applicant has not put forward any proposed grounds of his intended appeal either in his supporting affirmation or at the submissions made at the hearing this morning.

16.  All the applicant told the court was that he had recently got married last year to a Hong Kong resident and he would like to remain in Hong Kong longer. However, no matter how much sympathy I have for him and respect for his wish to remain with his newly wedded wife, I do not find that it constitutes a valid ground to challenge the Decision.

17.  In the circumstances, in the absence of any proposed grounds to challenge the Decision, I therefore am not satisfied that there is a good prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal.

18.  Whether to extend time to appeal is the discretion of the court.  Having anxiously examined the facts and evidence of this case, I am disinclined to exercise my discretion to extend the time to the applicant to serve his appeal.  The Summons is therefore dismissed.