AHMED MD NABEL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1635/2025

[2026] HKCFI 3224

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1635 OF 2025

________________________

BETWEEN

________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

Introduction

1.  On 24 February 2026, the court sent the Decision in the prescribed form and the Order of the same date by ordinary post to the applicant’s last known address (“Last Known Address”).

2.  In the Decision, the court dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the Appeal Board’s decision dated 16 September 2024, dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 24 May 2024, rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

3.  The posting of the Decision and the Order to the Last Known Address is successful.

4.  Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, the time limit for an appeal to the Court of Appeal is 14 days after the order of the court. The deadline for the applicant in this case to file his appeal against the Order would have been on 10 March 2026. However, the applicant only issued a Summons (“Summons”) one day later on 11 March 2026 to apply for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Order.

The law

5.  Before I discuss the facts of this case, I would briefly deal with the law. The applicable guidelines governing the discretion of an extension of time to appeal against the order refusing leave to apply for judicial review are as follows. The court shall have regard to: (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) The prospect of success 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 Gurang Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346; and Nguyen Thi Hong Thuy [2024] HKCA 1172.

Discussion

6.  In the affirmation in support of the Summons, the applicant only stated that he did not agree with the Decision. He had not put forward any grounds. At the hearing, the applicant explained further the reason of the one-day’s delay. He said he only received the Decision and the Order in the afternoon of 10 March at 6.30p.m. At that time, a friend who was with him explained the Decision to him and told him that the Leave Application had been dismissed. He therefore went to file the Summons the next day.

7.  In considering the length of the delay, I believe that a delay of one day is insignificant. However, I still have to consider the reason for the delay as well as the prospect of success of his intended appeal. As for the reason the applicant gave for his delay, I am not satisfied that the applicant has given a good explanation.

8.  According to the papers, the applicant had always been living at the last Known Address. There has not been any change of address at all. In the ordinary course of posting, the applicant should have been able to receive the Decision and the Order around the 5- or 6-day March 2026 at the latest. Despite the applicant’s submission that that he checked the post twice a day every day, he only received the court’s papers at 6.30p.m. on 10 March 2026.

9.  I find it too much of a coincidence. I do not believe it is true. The applicant already knew that he was late at the time when his friend explained to him the Decision. Since he was late, he should have, in common sense, kept the envelope that could show the date chop of the posting. I find it inexplicable that he had chosen to throw away such an important document.

10.  As for his prospect of success of his intended appeal, I am not satisfied that the applicant has shown and demonstrated that he has a good prospect of success. Apart from stating in the affirmation that he disagreed with the Decision, and that he still had a lot of problems in his home country, he had not advanced any valid grounds to challenge the Order.

Conclusion

11.  Whether to extend time to appeal is at discretion of the court. Having carefully examined the facts and the evidence of this case, I am disinclined to exercise my discretion to extend the time to the applicant to serve his appeal.

12.  The Summon is dismissed.