SAIFUL ISLAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 483/2020

[2025] HKCFI 4154

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 483 OF 2020

____________

____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

Introduction

1.  The Applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh. He entered Hong Kong illegally by boat on 28 April 2007. On 17 September 2007, he was arrested by the Hong Kong police as a suspected illegal entrant.

2.  The Applicant first filed the non-refoulement claim on 24 September 2007. Subsequently, he filed a torture claim form, a written statement, and a supplementary claim form. The Applicant’s claim was refused by the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) on 25 June 2018.

3.  The Applicant then challenged the decision before the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”). By the decision dated 30 March 2020, the Board affirmed the decision of the Director below (the “Board’s Decision”).

4.  By Form 86 filed on 3 April 2020, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the Board’s Decision. A hearing took place on 22 April 2025 and the Applicant attended in person. By the decision dated 8 May 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 1757) (the “Court Decision”), the court dismissed the application on the ground that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success.

5.  By the Summons filed on 10 July 2025, the Applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal against the Court Decision, as the 14-day period for him to file his appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court had expired (the “Application”).

6.  The Application was heard before me on 28 July 2025 (the “Hearing”). The Applicant attended the Hearing in person. When being asked about the delay, the Applicant said he did not receive the letter from the Court within the time period. He stated that he later found the letter on the floor near the mailbox, and so he guessed that the letter may have fallen out from the mailbox onto the ground.

7.  When being asked whether he had anything he wished to say in respect of the Application, the Applicant said he did not understand the Application. He said he asked someone to help him to prepare the Application, and he thought it was just an application to re-open his claim.

Discussion

8.  In considering whether to extend the time to appeal, it is trite that the court will take into account: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason(s) for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the degree of prejudice to the other party if an extension of time is granted. 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. (see Re Mushtaq Imran Ali [2025] HKCA 705, at §§16-17)

9.  In the present case, there was delay of about 7 weeks. No explanation was given in the supporting Affirmation. I do not accept the explanation provided by the Applicant at the Hearing. However, I shall proceed to consider if there is merit in the intended appeal before making any decision on the Application.

10.  In the Summons and in the supporting Affirmation, no grounds of appeal have been provided. The Applicant simply stated that he did not agree with the Court Decision because it is unreasonable. No particulars have been provided in support of such bare assertion. The Applicant had also failed to elaborate on this at the Hearing.

11.  I have considered the Court Decision together with the Board’s Decision in detail. I note that the Court had addressed all the complaints raised against the Board’s Decision in §§7-8 of the Court Decision. I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Court Decision. Neither has the Applicant made any such allegations. As admitted by the Applicant at the Hearing, the Applicant simply hopes the Court to re-open and re-consider the case. This is not a valid ground for appeal. Accordingly, I fail to see any prospect of success in the intended appeal.

Conclusion

12.  In the light of the aforesaid, I refuse to extend the time for the appeal, and the Application is hereby dismissed.