AKRAM RAJA ADNAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 856/2020

[2026] HKCFI 3561

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 856 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Introduction

1.  This is an application by the applicant to apply to appeal against this court’s order (“Order”)  dated 26 September 2025. On the same date of the Order, the court sent to the applicant the Order together with the decision in the form of Form CALL-1 (“Decision”)  dismissing the applicant’s applicant for leave to apply for judicial review against the Appeal Board’s decision.

2.  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 an order of the court.  The deadline for the applicant to file his appeal against the Order would have expired on 11 October 2025.  His application to appeal is therefore late for 4 days.

3.  The applicant issued a summons (“Summons”)  dated 14 October 2025 to apply for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Order.

4.  At the hearing of the Summons, the applicant appeared in person and made submissions.

The Law

5.  Before I deal with the facts of this case, I need to briefly discuss the law.  The applicable guidelines governing the discretion for 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 prospects 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.  The reason for the delay, according to the applicant’s supporting affirmation, is that he could not arrange sufficient funds to pay for the filing fees for the filing of the application.

7.  At the hearing, the applicant elaborated more on the stated reason of the alleged lack of funds. He said that since he did not have sufficient money, he went to ask his friends to borrow money but his friends refused him.  Eventually, a friend of his was willing to lend him the money.  This is the reason the applicant gave for his delay.

8.  In considering the length of delay, I believe that a delay of about 4 days is not lengthy.  Despite the short delay, the applicant shall still be required to give an explanation. I, however, find that the applicant’s reason for his delay on the ground of his lack of funds is not a good explanation.  The applicant was not able to tell me whether or not he had acted promptly to raise money to enable him to file the application. His reason for lack of funds and how he approached various friends to borrow money were vague and lacked sufficient detail.

9.  In the present case, I find it most disconcerting is the fact that the applicant’s reason for his intended appeal. He told me that he had not really read through the Decision for the dismissal of his application for leave to apply for judicial review. He said that the reason why he wanted to appeal was because his family was here in Hong Kong.

10.  In his affirmation, he repeated the same reason that he wanted to stay in Hong Kong because of his family.  He did not want to challenge the Decision.  Plainly, the applicant is not able to advance any proposed grounds to appeal against the Order.

11.  I believe that the applicant’s intended appeal is not an authentic challenge to the Order. The applicant’s real motive is to play for time.  Hence, I am not satisfied that the applicant has shown a good prospect of success in his intended appeal.

Conclusion

12.  Whether to extend time to appeal is the discretion of the court.  Having carefully examined the facts and evidence of this case, I am disinclined to exercise my discretion to extend time to the applicant to serve his appeal. 

13.  The Summons is therefore dismissed.