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

HCAL 1810/2020

[2026] HKCFI 2953

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1810 OF 2020

____________

BETWEEN

____________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1.  By summons (“the Summons”) filed on 7 January 2026, the Applicant seeks leave to appeal, out of time, against this Court’s decision dated 22 December 2025 (“the Decision”), whereby his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 1 September 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”) was dismissed.

2.  Under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, where an application for leave to apply for judicial review is refused by a judge, the applicant may appeal against the judge’s order to the Court of Appeal within 14 days after such order. The Applicant is therefore late in taking out the Summons by 2 days.

3.  In determining whether to extend time for appealing a refusal of leave, the court will consider: (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 an extension of time were granted (see Jagg Singh and Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office CAMP 64/2020 [2020] HKCA 844 at §10).

4.  While I accept that the delay in question cannot be regarded as substantial, the Applicant has merely asserted, in the Summons and the supporting affirmation, the he did not receive the Decision until 6 January 2026. He has, however, failed to provide any relevant details or evidence for consideration in support of that assertion.

5.  In any event, the paramount consideration lies in the merits of the intended appeal. The evident lack of merit in the proposed appeal weighs decisively against the grant of an extension of time (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).

6.  In the present case, the Applicant had merely expressed disagreement with the Board’s Decision and had not advanced any substantive ground capable of demonstrating error or law, irrationality, or procedural unfairness in the Board’s determination. Conversely, the Board had acted squarely within its remit, having thoroughly evaluated the relevant evidence against the governing legal principles before reaching its conclusion. In light of these circumstances, I held that, in the absence of any valid public law grounds being established by the Applicant against the Board’s determination, the Court should not interfere with the Board in its capacity as the primary decision-maker. Judicial review does not operate as an additional avenue of appeal. The Applicant has wholly failed to demonstrate why his application for leave to apply for judicial review should not be dismissed. He discloses no arguable basis upon which an appeal against my decision could succeed.

7.  To allow the Applicant to pursue a challenge that is plainly untenable would serve only to prolong the proceedings unnecessarily, disrupt the orderly administration of the refoulement process, and prejudice the interests of the proposed respondent.

8.  Accordingly, the Summons seeking an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal is dismissed.