ALI KHURRAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 2043/2020

[2026] HKCFI 436

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2043 OF 2020

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 7 May 2024 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in rejecting/dismissing 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 21 May 2025 seeks leave to appeal against that decision out of time, as the 14-day period after the decision within which to file his appeal under Order 53 Rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A expired on 21 May 2024, and hence he was some 12 months 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 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 12 months must be considered as extremely substantial and inordinate, for which he explained at the hearing of his summons that being uneducated and with no legal representation that he had difficulty preparing the necessary documents for his intended appeal until much later but by then he was already out of time.

5.  The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 7 May 2024 to the Applicant’s the reported address without being returned through undelivered post, while ignorance of the law can never be accepted as justification for their non-compliances. As such I am not satisfied that the Applicant has provided any good or valid reason for his such serious delay.

6.  More importantly, the Applicant has also failed to put forth any proper or valid draft or proposed grounds of appeal, or any particulars of any error in the decision or why it may reasonably be argued that the decision was unfair or unreasonable either in his summons or in his affirmation in which he just cited some applicable principles and repeated his claim as before but without putting forth any proper ground for his intended appeal, nor was he able to do so at the hearing of his summons, 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.

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 to grant leave to the Applicant to appeal out of time, and dismiss his summons.