RE HARDEV SINGH

CAMP 87/2025, [2026] HKCA 299

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 238

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 87 OF 2025

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2482 OF 2020)

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 27 February 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 652) (“the EOT Decision”), refusing to grant extension of time to the applicant to appeal against the Judge’s earlier decision dated 18 January 2024 ([2024] HKCFI 238) (“the Leave Decision”).

2.  By the Leave Decision, the Judge dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 28 October 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) dated 27 April 2017, refusing his non-refoulement claim on the basis of BOR2 risk.

3.  The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [1] ‑ [13] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge has set out in detail the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the Leave Application and his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [14] ‑ [21] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge has also set out in detail his reasons for refusing the extension of time to appeal application taken out by the applicant: see [2] ‑ [7] of the EOT Decision.  We will not repeat those details herein.

4.  By the Summons filed on 2 May 2025, the applicant sought to appeal against the EOT Decision but did not provide any ground of the intended appeal.  On the same day, the applicant also filed a supporting affirmation, exhibiting over 30 pages of documents.[1]

5.  The applicant further lodged written submissions on 9 May 2025.  In those submissions, he reiterated the factual basis of his non‑refoulement claim.  He also complained that the Board’s Decision and the Director’s Decision were unfair and unreasonable and failed to consider state acquiescence.  He further asserted that the Board was unreasonable and procedurally unfair in its reliance on the Country of Origin information, and that he was given insufficient time and opportunity to produce evidence before the Board. 

6.  Having considered the documents, we are of the view that it is appropriate to determine this application on paper without a hearing pursuant to Order 59, rule 14A of the Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A) (“the RHC”).

Discussion

7.  Following the approach this court has adopted in Tang Chai On v Tang Sing Ki [2016] 5 HKLRD 104 at [3] ‑ [8], we will treat the present application as a renewed application for extension of time to appeal against the Leave Decision.

8.  Under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the RHC, the applicant may appeal against the Leave Decision to the Court of Appeal within 14 days of the order.  In deciding whether to extend time to appeal, the court will take into account the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and the degree of prejudice to the other party if an extension of time is granted.

9.  The prospect of success of an intended appeal is important.  The court will not grant an extension of time to appeal for a hopeless appeal to be pursued: Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, at [19].

10.  The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant.  If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed.  The Court of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst at [14(6)]).

11.  As noted by the Judge at [2] of the EOT Decision, the applicant first applied for extension of time to appeal before the Judge by way of a summons filed on 5 December 2024.  By then, he was late for over 10 months in taking out his application, which amounted to very substantial and inordinate delay: [4] of the EOT Decision.  He also failed to provide any good reason to justify his substantial delay.

12.  More importantly, his intended appeal has no substance.  At the outset, his assertions are all general, vague and bare which are not proper grounds of appeal.  General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  His complaints were also mainly directed at the Board’s Decision, and he failed to identify any error with specific particulars against the Leave Decision.  The Judge had considered those submissions and rejected the same with detailed reasons at [14] ‑ [21] of the Leave Decision.  In the absence of demonstrating any error in the Leave Decision, the applicant’s assertions are plainly not valid grounds of appeal.  We see no basis to disturb the Leave Decision.

13.  Accordingly, there is no prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal.  It is thus futile to grant the applicant any extension of time to appeal against the Leave Decision.

14.  The reapplication for extension of time to appeal is refused, and the applicant’s summons taken out on 2 May 2025 is dismissed.