OBIJIAKU MOSES CHIKA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 290/2021

[2026] HKCFI 4013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 290 OF 2021

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.  On 10 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 24 March 2026 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 24 October 2025, and hence he was some 5 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 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 5 months must be considered as very substantial and inordinate, for which he explained in his affirmation that he was then being detained at Castle Peak Bay Immigration Centre (“CIC”), and after the decision sent to his residential address had been received by his wife, she was not aware that it should be brought to his immediate attention until much later when she visited him at CIC that 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 10 October 2025 to the Applicant’s then reported address without being returned through undelivered post, and while his assertions may well be true, they certainly cannot in my view justify his such serious delay.

6.  More importantly, nor did he 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 his affirmation in which he essentially just repeated his claim as before and his complaints against the Director and the Board for rejecting his claim. 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 his application for leave to appeal out of time, and dismiss the Applicant’s summons.