Ahmed Sagheer v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 3626/2019

[2025] HKCFI 4511

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 3626 OF 2019

____________

____________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1.By summons (“the Summons”) filed on 30 April 2025, the Applicant seeks an extension of time to appeal this Court’s order dated 9 April 2025 (“the Decision”) dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Petition Office dated 29 November 2019, which confirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 21 June 2018 rejecting his non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds under the USM.

2.Under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, where an application for leave to apply for judicial review is refused by a judge, the applicant may appeal against the judge’s order to the Court of Appeal within 14 days after such order. The Applicant was therefore late in taking out the Summons by 7 days. In considering whether to extend time for appealing a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the Court will take into account: (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 an extension of time were granted (see Jagg Singh and Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office CAMP 64/2020 [2020] HKCA 844 at §10).

3.The Applicant acknowledges that he was late. I accept that the period of delay may not be the most inordinate. However, the Applicant’s explanation or justification for the delay is extremely vague. He merely asserts that he did not receive the Decision, yet fails to indicate what steps he took to ascertain where it had been sent. Furthermore, he has not specified when he first became aware of the Decision, nor has he disclosed how much time elapsed before he took out the Summons.

4.In any event, the most important consideration lies in the merits of the proposed appeal (see Re MK HCMP 2609/2016, 10 January 2017, at §§7-8; Chu On Fong Winter v The Appeal Panel (Housing) HCMP 982/2017, 20 July 2017, at §11; Islam Raja Rais v Director of Immigration HCMP 881/2017, 26 June 2017, at §10). In the present case, I was satisfied that the Board had properly assessed the Applicant’s evidence and concluded that he would not be subjected to any risk, as alleged, if he returned to his country. None of the materials provided by the Applicant demonstrated any valid reason or basis for him to challenge the legality, rationality, or procedural fairness of the process before the Board. The intended judicial review was therefore not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospect of success. The Applicant has advanced no arguable grounds of appeal against such decision. It would thus be a futile exercise to grant an extension of time to enable the Applicant to pursue a challenge that is bound to fail.

5.Lastly, allowing an unmeritorious application to proceed would be prejudicial to the proper administration of the Respondent’s refoulement process.

6.Accordingly, I refuse to allow the Applicant to appeal out of time and order the Summons to be dismissed.

The applicant appeared in person