KHAN JAMSHAD v. NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1466/2020

[2026] HKCFI 90

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1466 OF 2020

________________________

________________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.  By a summons issued on 30 December 2025 (“Summons”) supported by an affirmation of the same date (“Affirmation”) the Applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal my order dated 15 December 2025 (“Order”) wherein I had refused his application for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“NRCPO”) dated 24 June 2020 (“NRCPO Decision”).

2.  In dealing with such I have had regard below to the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the prospects of the intended appeal, and the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time is granted (see Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346; Nupur Mst [2018] HKCA 524; Nguyen Van Quyen [2025] HKCA 510).

3.  In the Summons the Applicant has simply said he seeks a time extension for his appeal. The Affirmation says the same, and adds that he is “a common Person who do not understand court Procedure and English language”.

4.  As the 14-day period for the Applicant to appeal against the Order expired on 29 December 2025 (RHC O. 53 r. 3(4)), the delay is one of only 1 day. I will hence focus on the prospects of success in the intended appeal, which are important as the court will not grant an extension of time to pursue a hopeless appeal (Tran Van Anh [2025] HKCA 408).

5.  The Summons or Affirmation have not set out any ground of appeal against my decision in relation to the application for leave, in which I had reviewed the NRCPO Decision with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, applying the enhanced Wednesbury standard. I do not see that there is any ground of appeal with any prospect of success, particularly when the Applicant has not identified any basis (in the nature of an error of law, any failure to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court, or that I was plainly wrong) on which the Court of Appeal would reverse my decision and the Order (Nupur Mst, supra).

6.  In relation to the Applicant’s claims that he does not understand English, both the Form 86 and the Summons were in English, and both the affirmation filed in support of the leave application, and the present Affirmation, were in English and contained translation clauses. Hence either the Applicant is himself conversant with English, or he has access to language assistance of his own if necessary. In any event, the Applicant has not identified any prejudice that he has suffered in relation to his English abilities. I do not see that such allegation gives rise to any proper ground of appeal.

7.  In the premises, it would be futile to extend time and would clearly needlessly prejudice the respondent for what appears to be a hopeless appeal.

8.  Given the above, I refuse the application and dismiss the Summons.