Mehmood Muhammad Khalid v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 129/2020

[2025] HKCFI 4412

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 129 OF 2020

________________________

________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

1.By my decision dated 25 April 2025, I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “TCAB”) dated 31 December 2019 which refused the Applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim.

2.By a summons issued on 27 May 2025, the Applicant seeks extension of time to appeal against my above decision. As the 14-day appeal period under O.53, r.3(4) of the RHC expired on 9 May 2025, the Applicant is out of time in his intended appeal by 18 days.

3.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).

4.The delay in the present case was not lengthy and it was asserted in the summons that the Applicant received the “court’s letter very late”. However, while exhibiting a letter from the Court dated 25 April 2025 enclosing the decision, there is no evidence whatsoever as to the time of receipt of the letter in the supporting affirmation. The fact that the letter came to be exhibited must mean that the Applicant had in fact received it at the stated address, hence it befalls the Applicant to explain why he did not receive it until “very late” (or indeed how late) but he has failed to do so.

5.More importantly, there is nothing in either the present summons or the supporting affirmation to indicate even an attempt to raise any proposed grounds of appeal, or any error in the decision he seeks to appeal against, apart from alleging that he still faces “life danger” in his home country of Pakistan. When asked at the hearing on 1 September 2025, the Applicant did not add anything. As such I fail to see any prospect of success in his intended appeal.

6.In the premises, it would be pointless to extend the time for the Applicant’s intended appeal. I therefore dismiss the application.

The Applicant appeared in person