Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1261/2020

[2025] HKCFI 5213

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1261 OF 2020

_____________

BETWEEN

	Conteh Essa	Applicant
	And
	Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	And
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

_____________

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Val Chow in Chambers

Date of Hearing:	30 October 2025
Date of Decision:	13 November 2025

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

Introduction

1.This is an application for extension of time to appeal (the “Application”) against my decision dated 19 August 2025 (the “Decision”) where I refused leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review in respect of the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.The Application was made by summons dated 25 September 2025. As the running of time for appeal was suspended during the August summer vacation[1], the deadline for appeal fell on 15 September 2025[2]. Hence, there was a delay of 10 days which is relatively short.

Analysis

3.In considering whether a time extension to appeal should be granted, it is well established that 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.Even in the case where the delay is a short one, the arguability of the intended appeal is an important consideration, 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; Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226.

5.Despite the fact that a notice of hearing of the Application was sent to the Applicant’s address on 29 September 2025, the Applicant failed to attend the hearing on 30 October 2025. I note that the Applicant was also absent at the hearing of his leave application on 21 July 2025 which led to the Decision. On the basis of the plaintiff’s want of prosecution alone, I would be prepared to dismiss the Application.

6.In any event, even I were to assume in favour of the Applicant that there was a reasonable explanation of the delay, I will not grant any time extension as I am not satisfied that the appeal has any prospect of success as there is no attempt in the Applicant’s affidavit in support of the Application to identify any proposed ground of appeal or errors in the Decision.

7.The Application is accordingly dismissed.