JORAJ MASIH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 1711/2020

[2026] HKCFI 3268

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1711 OF 2020

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 23 October 2025 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in dismissing his appeal regarding his non-refoulement claim upon finding that none of the grounds put forward by him reasonably arguable for his intended challenge, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the process before the Director of Immigration (“Director”) or the Board or in their decisions, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success in his intended application.

2.  The Applicant now by a summons issued on 7 November 2025 (of which has only recently been brought to the court’s attention) seeks leave to appeal against that decision out of time, as the 14-day period for him to file his appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A ended on 6 November 2025, and hence he was 1 day late with his intended appeal.

3.  In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the Court shall have regard to (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 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 Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346.

4.  In the Applicant’s case, a delay of only 1 day cannot on any views be considered as significant, for which he explained in his affirmation that being uneducated and without legal representation, he was not aware of the deadline for the filing of his appeal until he was so advised by a friend, but by then he was already out of time with his intended appeal.

5.  The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 23 October 2025 to his then reported address without being returned through undelivered post, and while ignorance of the procedural rules can never be accepted as any justification for their non-compliance, given the insignificance of his delay, I propose to focus on the prospect of success of his intended appeal.

6.  However, the Applicant has failed to put forward any proper or valid draft or proposed grounds of appeal, or any particulars of any error in the decision or why it may be reasonably arguable that the decision was unfair or unreasonable either in his summons or in his affirmation in which he just asserted that he still has severe problem in his home country that he cannot return. As such and in the absence of any error in the decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not see any prospect of success in his intended appeal either.

7.  In the premises, and for the reasons given, it would be futile to extend time for what appears to be a hopeless appeal. Accordingly, I refuse the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal out of time, and dismiss his summons.