Rashid Zafar Ghori Alias Rashid Zafar Alias Ghori Rashid Zafar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

HCAL 1472/2024

[2025] HKCFI 4170

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 1472 OF 2024

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.On 25 March 2025 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in rejecting/dismissing his non-refoulement claim upon finding that none of the grounds put forward by him reasonably arguable for his intended challenge, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the process before the Director of Immigration (“Director”) or the Board or in their decisions, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success in his intended application.

2.The Applicant now by a summons issued on 24 April 2025 seeks leave to appeal against that decision out of time, as the 14-day period after the decision within which to file his appeal under Order 53 Rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap. 4A expired on 8 April 2025, and hence he was some 16 days late with his intended appeal.

3.In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the Court shall have regard to (i) 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 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 Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346.

4.In the Applicant’s case, a delay of 16 days must be considered as significant, for which he explained at the hearing of his summons that he has been detained at Tai Tam Gap Correctional Institution and hence needed time to seek legal assistance from outside which accounted for his delay.

5.The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 25 March 2025 to the Applicant’s then detention at Tai Tam Gap Correctional Institution where assistances from welfare officers stationed there were readily available to the Applicant, and while he was entitled to seek assistance from his own lawyers on the outside, that by itself cannot be accepted as valid justification for his albeit insubstantial delay for his intended appeal.

6.More importantly, the Applicant also failed to put forth any proper or valid draft or proposed grounds of appeal, or any particulars of any error in the decision or why it may reasonably be argued that the decision was unfair or unreasonable either in his summons or in his affirmation in which he essentially repeated many of the grounds that he relied on in his leave application for judicial review of the Board’s decision but without putting forth any proper ground for his intended appeal of the Court’s decision, nor was he able to do so at the hearing of his summons. As such, and in the absence of any error in the decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not see any prospect of success in his intended appeal.

7.In the premises, and for the reasons given, it would be futile to extend time for what appears to be a hopeless appeal. Accordingly, I refuse to grant leave to the Applicant to appeal out of time, and dismiss his summons.

The Applicant appeared in person.