ALI MOBASHIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 3849/2019

[2025] HKCFI 6004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 3849 OF 2019

________________________

________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

1.  By my decision dated 12 May 2025, I dismissed the Applicant’s application to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 19 December 2019 which refused the Applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim.

2.  The reason for the dismissal was that, subsequent to the hearing, the Applicant wrote to the Immigration Department and stated that he wished to withdrawal his application and be returned. The Immigration Department relayed the letter to the Court and therefore I acceded to the withdrawal and formally dismissed the application.

3.  By a summons issued on 18 November 2025, the Applicant sought extension of time to appeal against the above dismissal. As the 14-day appeal period under O 53, r 3(4) of the RHC expired on 26 May 2025, the Applicant is out of time in his intended appeal by more than 5 months.

4.  The applicable principles are trite: the court shall have regard to (a) 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 extension of time were granted (see Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226 and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346).

5.  What the Applicant stated in his affirmation is that (a) he, apparently mistakenly, believed that returning to his home country would resolve his issues but in fact since his withdrawal he had “encountered significant problems” in his home country that would put his life at risk, and (b) he was not legally represented at the hearing so he was not in a position to adequately respond to my inquiries. For these reasons, he asked to continue the proceedings of his original application and, in effect, withdraw his withdrawal.

6.  When asked at the hearing of the present summons, the Applicant said that he did not have anything to add.

7.  The delay in the present case was lengthy and there is nothing by way of explanation in the Applicant’s affirmation filed in support of the present application.

8.  More importantly, the Applicant has not raised any error in the decision he is seeking to appeal against, but only alleged that he held a mistaken belief. However, even as to that, he has not put forth any evidence to show that he had, as alleged, “encountered significant problems” in his home country since his withdrawal.

9.  As to his complaint of not having legal representation and thus being rendered incapable of adequately responding to my questions, quite apart from the principle that free legal representation at all stages of the proceedings is not an absolute right (see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at [18] and Re Zahid Abbas [2018] HKCA 15 at [11]), I do not see any substance in the complaint as I asked only of whether he had anything to add, not anything legal, so he was fully capable of telling me what else he wished to add even without a lawyer.

10.  I therefore fail to see any prospect of success in his intended appeal and it would be pointless to extend the time for this intended appeal. This application is accordingly dismissed.