Abdallah Aboubacar Ali v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 3769/2019

[2025] HKCFI 4081

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 3769 OF 2019

________________________

________________________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

Introduction

1.The Applicant is a Nigerien. He last arrived in Hong Kong on 28 August 2015. He was permitted to remain as a visitor until 11 September 2015. He overstayed since 12 September 2015 and was arrested by police on 15 September 2015 for overstaying.

2.The Applicant filed the non-refoulement claim on 21 and 24 September 2015, stating that he feared he would be harmed or killed upon his return to Niger. The claim was assessed by the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) on all applicable grounds. By the decision dated 9 November 2018, the Director rejected the claim.

3.The Applicant then challenged the decision before the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”). By the decision dated 29 November 2019 (the “Board’s Decision”), the Board dismissed the petition.

4.By Form 86 filed on 18 December 2019, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the Board’s Decision (the “Leave Application”). A hearing took place on 13 March 2025 but the Applicant did not attend the hearing. By the decision dated 7 April 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 1409) (the “Court Decision”), the court dismissed the application on the ground that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success.

5.By the Summons filed on 25 July 2025, the Applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal against the Court Decision, as the 14-day period for him to file his appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court had expired (the “Application”).

6.The Application was heard before me on 25 August 2025 (the “Hearing”). The Applicant attended the Hearing in person. When asked about the delay in filing the Application, the Applicant said he had no explanation. The Applicant further indicated that he had nothing to say in respect of the Application.

Discussion

7.In considering whether to extend the time to appeal, it is trite that the court will take into account: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason(s) for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the degree of prejudice to the other party if an extension of time is granted. The prospect of success of an intended appeal is important. The court will not grant an extension of time to appeal for a hopeless appeal to be pursued. (see Re Mushtaq Imran Ali [2025] HKCA 705, at §§16-17)

8.In the present case, there was delay of about 3 months. No explanation was given in the supporting Affirmation. Further, despite being specifically asked about the delay at the Hearing, the Applicant said he could offer no explanation. I shall nevertheless proceed to consider the merit in the intended appeal.

9.In the Summons and in the supporting Affirmation, apart from saying that he does not want to go back to his country due to alleged safety reason, no grounds of appeal have been provided. The Applicant had also failed to state the grounds of the intended appeal at the Hearing.

10.I have considered the Court Decision together with the Board’s Decision in detail. I note that the Applicant had also failed to provide any grounds in support of the Leave Application. The court had reviewed the Board’s Decision and came to the correct decision that there is no realistic prospect of success in the intended challenge of the Board’s Decision. I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Court Decision. Neither has the Applicant made any such allegations. Accordingly, I fail to see any prospect of success in the intended appeal.

Conclusion

11.As there is no explanation for the delay, and there is no prospect of success in the appeal, I refuse to extend the time for the appeal, and the Application is hereby dismissed.

The applicant was unrepresented and appeared in person.