AMBATALI RUBEN DUMAYAS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1894/2020

[2026] HKCFI 3063

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1894 OF 2020

________________________

BETWEEN

________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

1.  By my decision dated 5 December 2025, I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 18 December 2019 which refused the Applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim.

2.  By a summons filed on 6 January 2026, the Applicant seeks extension of time to appeal against my above decision. As the 14-day appeal period under O 53, r 3(4) of the RHC expired on 19 December 2025, the Applicant is out of time in his intended appeal by 19 days.

3.  The applicable principles are trite: 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.  The delay in the present case was not particularly long but there is no explanation whatsoever offered in either the summons or the affidavit filed in support.

5.  Further and more importantly, there is nothing in either the present summons or the supporting affidavit to articulate any proposed grounds of appeal, or point to any particular error in the decision she seeks to appeal against. As such I fail to see any prospect of success in the intended appeal.

6.  The Applicant was further absent from the hearing scheduled on 11 May 2026 for this summons. The Notice of Hearing was sent to the same address the Applicant had provided in the present summons, which is also the same address through which the Applicant was eventually contacted for attendance of a re-fixed hearing before me on 28 November 2025 for his Form 86 application. The consequence of any delay occasioned by the ineffectiveness of correspondence address falls on the shoulder of the litigant (see Re Ahmed Syed Rafiq [2018] HKCA 178), hence the consequence of not attending the hearing of the present summons on 11 May 2026 falls on the shoulder of the Applicant.

7.  In the premises, it would be pointless to extend the time for the Applicant’s intended appeal. I therefore dismiss the application.