EHSAN ULLAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 2605/2019

[2026] HKCFI 455

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2605 OF 2019

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Introduction

1.  On 18 March 2025, the court sent by ordinary post to the applicant’s address, which the applicant confirmed at the hearing on 25 February 2025, the following documents: the decision of the court dated 18 March 2025 (“Decision”)  dismissing the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”)  and an order of the dismissal (“Order”). Hereinafter, in this Decision, I would refer to the Decision and the Order as the documents (“Documents”); and the address he confirmed at the hearing before the court on 25 February 2025 would be referred to as the confirmed address (“Confirmed Address”).

2.  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 14-day period for the applicant to appeal to the judge’s order in dismissing his application to apply for leave to appeal would have expired on 2 April 2025.

3.  After a delay of about two months, the applicant issued a summons (“Summons”)  dated 10 June 2025 to apply for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the order of the court.  At the scheduled hearing today Summons, the applicant appeared in person and made submissions.

The Law

4.  The guidelines governing the discretion for an extension of time to appeal against the decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review therefore apply.  The court shall have regard to (i)  the length of the delay; (ii)  the reason for the delay; (iii)  the prospects 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.

Delay Application

5.  For the applicant’s explanation for the delay, in the applicant’s affirmation in support of the Summons, the applicant simply stated that he wanted to apply for the Leave Application out of time to appeal, “So according to law, I am requesting for extension of time to appeal by summons with affirmation”.  No other reasons are given.  At this hearing, I took the opportunity to explore with the applicant as to his reason for the delay.

6.  The Documents were posted to the applicant on 18 March 2025.  I noted on the court file the Documents were returned undelivered to the applicant’s Confirmed Address on 1 April 2025.

7.  Thus, the delivery of the Documents to the applicant was unsuccessful. I therefore asked the applicant to clarify the Confirmed Address.  The applicant told the court that he moved from the Confirmed Address to the present address in Yuen Long around November 2025.  To my surprise, despite the unsuccessful delivery of the Documents to the applicant, the applicant told me this morning that he actually received the Documents in December 2025. In order to ensure that the applicant understood what documents he was referring to, I asked my clerk to show to the applicant the Decision and the Order.

8.  After having been shown the Decision and the Order, the applicant confirmed that he had indeed received the Order and the Decision in December 2025.  Since the Summons was issued in June, it would not have been possible that the applicant only received the Order and Decision in December after the issuance of the Summons. I asked the applicant to confirm why he decided to issue the Summons for extension of time to appeal in June 2025 before he had received the Documents.

9.  The applicant started to give me various explanations which I find confusing.  He stated that he missed the post as there were many people living in the Confirmed Address.  He stated that he did not receive the letter.  According to the court’s file, there was a letter sent to the applicant informing him of the handing down of the Decision. However, the letter was returned on 3 April 2025.  It is unclear whether the applicant was referring to that letter or the Order and the Decision.

10.  The applicant stated that afterwards, he came to the High Court around 3 or 4 months ago.  He did that because his friend asked him if he received the court’s decision.  When he told his friend that he had not, his friend then asked him to come to the High Court.  When he was in the High Court, he was given the Decision. At the same time, he issued the Summons.

11.  From the above explanation the applicant had stated, which I have set out in full, it is clear to my mind that the applicant was unable to give a satisfactory explanation.  I do not accept the applicant’s explanation for the delay.

12.  Since the applicant is requesting for an extension of time to file an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the dismissal of the Leave Application, I asked him to provide his intended grounds to challenge the Decision. The applicant told the court that he had in fact no challenge against the Decision.  The reason why he wanted to file an appeal is simply because he wanted more time as he had problems here, meaning in Hong Kong.  I therefore believe that it is plain that the present intended appeal is not an authentic challenge to the Decision.  As the applicant had confirmed at the hearing, his real purpose of the appeal is to play for time.

13.  As for the prospect of success, it is plain that there is not any.  This is because the applicant has actually confirmed he has no grounds to challenge the Decision.

Conclusion

14.  Whether to extend time to appeal is the discretion of the court.  Having anxiously 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.  The Summons is therefore dismissed.