ALI NAZAKAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 501/2020

[2025] HKCFI 3705

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 501 OF 2020

________________________

________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

Introduction

1.  The Applicant is a citizen of Pakistan. His non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) on 23 April 2018.

2.  The Applicant then challenged the said decision before the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”). By the decision dated 16 March 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”), the Board dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the Director.

3.  By Form 86 filed on 6 April 2020, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the Board’s Decision (the “Leave Application”). A hearing was held on 22 April 2025 and the Applicant attended in person. By the decision dated 22 May 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 1858) (the “Court Decision”), the court dismissed the application on the ground that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success.

4.  By the Summons filed on 9 June 2025, the Applicant applied for extension of time to appeal against the Court Decision, as the 14-day period for him to file his appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court had expired (the “Application”).

5.  The Application was heard before me on 11 July 2025 (the “Hearing”). The Applicant attended in person. The Applicant explained that the delay was due to the fact that he did not check the mailbox. The Applicant had no other submissions to make at the Hearing.

Discussion

6.  In considering whether to extend the time to appeal, it is trite that the court will take into account: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason(s) for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the degree of prejudice to the other party if an extension of time is granted. The prospect of success of an intended appeal is important. The court will not grant an extension of time to appeal for a hopeless appeal to be pursued. (see Re Mushtaq Imran Ali [2025] HKCA 705, at §§16-17)

7.  In the present case, there was delay of a few days. Given the relatively short period of delay, I am prepared to grant indulgence if there is merit in the intended appeal. I shall accordingly proceed to consider whether there is merit in the intended appeal.

8.  The Applicant has not provided any grounds for the intended appeal either in the Summons or in the supporting Affirmation. The Applicant also indicated that he had nothing to say save and except the explanation of the delay at the Hearing.

9.  I have considered the Court Decision together with the Board’s Decision in detail. I note that the Applicant had also failed to provide any meaningful grounds in support of the Leave Application. I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Court Decision. Neither has the Applicant made any such allegations. The court had explained in the Court Decision why the challenge of the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success (see in particular §7 thereof). I fail to see any prospect of success in the intended appeal.

Conclusion

10.  As there is no prospect of success in the appeal, I refuse to extend the time for the appeal, and the Application is hereby dismissed.