Gurbachan Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 3825/2019

[2025] HKCFI 4394

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 3825 OF 2019

________________________

________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

1.By my decision dated 14 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 20 December 2019 which refused the Applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim.

2.By a summons issued on 8 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 28 April 2025, the Applicant is out of time in his intended appeal by 10 days.

3.The applicable principles are trite: 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 Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226 and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346).

4.The Applicant was absent at the hearing of 1 September 2025. On court record, the Notice of Hearing dated 4 August 2025 was sent to the Applicant at the same address he stated in his current summons and affirmation and the Applicant was contacted through his mobile on 25 and 29 August 2025. Further, logically if the Applicant was able to receive the decision (in turn making this application), then he must have also received the Notice of Hearing. Despite the foregoing, he did not attend and I fail to see any reason why I should not proceed to decide this application in his absence.

5.The delay in the present case was not particularly lengthy but there is nothing by way of explanation in the Applicant’s affirmation filed in support of the present application.

6.Further and more importantly, apart from asserting that the decision was “unsatisfactory and unreasonable”, there is nothing in either the present summons or the supporting affirmation to articulate any proposed grounds of appeal, or point to any particular error in the decision he seeks to appeal against. As such I fail to see any prospect of success in his intended appeal.

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

The Applicant was unrepresented and did not appear