MAMUN MIAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1494/2020

[2025] HKCFI 5215

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1494 OF 2020

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

Introduction

1.  This is an application for extension of time to appeal (the “Application”) against my decision dated 27 August 2025 (the “Decision”) where I refused leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review in respect of the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  The Application was made by summons dated 22 September 2025. As the running of time for appeal was suspended during the August summer vacation[1], the deadline for appeal fell on 15 September 2025[2]. Hence, there was a delay of 7 days.

Analysis

3.  In considering whether a time extension to appeal should be granted, it is well established that the court shall have regard to (a) 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 Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226 and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346.

4.  Even in the case where the delay is a short one, the arguability of the intended appeal is an important consideration, 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; Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226.

5.  In the present case, although the period of delay is short, I am not prepared to accept that the Applicant has a credible explanation for the delay:-

(1) In his 2^nd affirmation in support of the Application, the Applicant claimed that he did not receive the Decision in time so that by the time he received the Decision, it was already too late to appeal in time.

(2) However, when I inquired with him as to the reason for his delay during the hearing, he changed his position and said that he was late because he forgot about the deadline.

6.  In my view, the most important factor is the merits of the proposed appeal. In the present case, I am not satisfied that the appeal has any prospect of success:-

(1) In his 2^nd affirmation, the Applicant made a bare and unparticularised allegation that the Decision was reached unfairly and that he was not given the opportunity to clarify his case or present his circumstances regarding the situation in his home country.

(2) However, the Applicant was unable to articulate what other matters should be brought to the court’s attention in order to fully present his case. As noted in the Decision at [6], the Applicant has been claiming that he wishes to submit further documents when he filed his Form 86 on 15 July 2020 but no such other document was submitted notwithstanding the lapse of 5 years between the filing of the Form 86 and the hearing of his leave application on 24 July 2025. Further, the Applicant was completely unable to identify what such further documents were and how they would assist his case.

(3) Further, before the Decision was handed down, the Applicant attended the oral hearing on 24 July 2025 (the “Previous Hearing) where he was given the opportunity to present his case. The Applicant’s submissions at the Previous Hearing were fully considered and addressed in the Decision at [12].

(4) At the hearing of the Application on 30 October 2025, the Applicant was unable to add anything of substance to his proposed appeal. He simply asked me to give him more time as his life would still be in danger if he were to return to his home country.

7.  The Application is accordingly dismissed.