|
HCAL 1511/2020
[2026] HKCFI 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
NO. 1511 OF 2020
_____________
BETWEEN
|
Azeem Nasir |
Applicant |
|
and |
|
|
Torture Claims Appeal Board /
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Putative Respondent |
|
and |
|
|
Director of Immigration |
Putative Interested Party |
_____________
| Before: |
Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers |
| Date of Decision: |
6 May 2026 |
_____________
D E C I S I O N
_____________
The application
1. The applicant is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission and he lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director rejected his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). As the applicant’s appeal was out of time, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), refused to extend time for him to file his notice of appeal, effectively dismissed his appeal.
2. Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the applicant filed Form No. 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
3. By Form CALL-1 dated 12 July 2022 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court granted leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. The Court further ordered that the applicant should issue the originating summons within 14 days after the decision.
4. The Court’s decision was sent to the applicant on 12 July 2022 at his last known address without being returned from the Post Office. He is deemed to receive the Court’s decision[1].
5. The time for filing the originating summons expired on 26 July 2022[2].
6. By letter lodged on 3 February 2026, the applicant applied for extension of time to issue the originating summons for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. He is late for more than 3 years and 6 months. The applicant asked for 14 days to issue the originating summons.
7. The applicant admitted that he had delayed the application because he is not an educated person and he apologized.
Discussion
8. Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A and Order 53, rule 3(3) of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reason, I decide to determine this application on paper without an oral hearing[3].
9. The reason under paragraph 7 is not valid for his delay.
10. It is clear that the Board had not considered the merits of the applicant’s case. The Court decides to give the applicant one final chance to take out an application for leave for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. In view of the long delay and lack of good reasons, the Court decides to impose a “unless order” on the applicant in terms as follows:
“Unless within 14 days of the service of this order, the applicant files the originating summons in accordance with Order 53, rule 5(5) of the Rules of the High Court, the applicant’s application shall be dismissed without further order of this Court.”
| |
(K.W. Lung) |
| |
Deputy High Court Judge |
The applicant was unrepresented.
[1] Re: Ravinder Singh [2023] HKCA 604, Hon Poon CJHC and Cheung JA, 28 April 2023
“17. The applicant had not filed any notice of change of address for service to notify of any changes in his address. According to the Court’s record, the Court’s decision was sent to the applicant’s last known address on 31 March 2022 by ordinary post. He was deemed to receive the same on the next following day, not being a specified day such as a Saturday or a general holiday. He was therefore deemed to have received the Court’s decision on 1 April 2022.”
[2] The public holidays are included in the 14-day period as per Order 2(5) of the Rules of the High Court
2. Reckoning periods of time (O. 3, r. 2)
(5) Where, apart from this paragraph, the period in question, being a period of 7 days or less, would include a specified day, that day shall be excluded.
(35 of 1998 s. 5; 18 of 2016 s. 5)
[3] Ogbozor Tochukwu Eugene v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Director of Immigration [2022] HKCA 607, Hon Kwan VP and G Lam JA, 6 May 2022:
“16. … … In respect of his complaint of no oral hearing, the judge is entitled to decide the matter on paper pursuant to the Order 32, rules 11 and 11A and Order 53 rule 3(3) of the Rules of the High Court.”
|