Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1468/2020

[2026] HKCFI 1882

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1468 OF 2020

________________________

BETWEEN
	Javed Asad	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

______________________

Before:

DHCJ Levy in Chambers (Open to the Public)

Date of Hearing:	3 March 2026
Date of Decision:	3 March 2026

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Introduction

1.On 21 October 2025, the court sent the order together with the decision of this court in the prescribed “Form Call-1 ([2025] HKCFI 4762), (“Decision”) by ordinary post to the applicant’s place of detention which, according to the information we received, was in the Immigration Department’s detention centre in Castle Peak, commonly known as the “CIC”.

2.In the Decision, the court dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review against the Appeal Board’s decision dated 15 May 2020 dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 21 August 2018, rejecting the applicant’s non‑refoulement claim on all applicable grounds.

3.After the Decision was sent on 21 October 2025, the court received a return post dated 3 November 2025 of the order and the Decision. On 4 November 2025, the court made inquiries from the Immigration Department regarding the applicant’s updated address. On 11 November 2025, the Immigration Department faxed a letter to the court informing the court that the applicant was no longer detained in CIC but was in Tai Tam Gap Correctional Institution.

4.Upon receiving this information from the Immigration Department, the court resent the order and the Decision to the applicant at his place of detention at Tai Tam Gap on 14 November 2025. After this was sent, the court on 10 December 2025 received the summons (“Summons”) from the applicant seeking for an extension of time against the Decision. His application is for an extension of time to appeal against the Decision to the Court of Appeal.

5.At this hearing of the Summons this morning, the applicant was brought to the court to appear in person by the Immigration Department.

The Law

6.Before I discuss the applicant’s submissions later on, I should firstly discuss the guidelines governing the discretion for the extension of time to appeal. The court have to consider four factors: (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the prospect of success of the intended appeal; and (iv) the prejudice to the respondent if an 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 Gurang Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346; and Nguyen Thi Hong Thuy [2024] HKCA 1172.

Discussion

7.In the affirmation in support of the Summons, the applicant explained that the reason why he was late because he received the Decision late. He said that by the time he received the court’s order, it was already out of time. The applicant also submitted a letter to the court at the hearing providing similar explanation for the delay.

8.In order to decide if the applicant’s explanation for the delay is acceptable, I think I need to go back a little bit to the chronology of this case. According to the explanation the applicant gave to the court, since 6 November 2023, he was arrested and detained in connection with some criminal offences or a criminal offence. He was initially detained in Lai Chi Kok Remand Centre and later transferred to Stanley Prison to serve his prisons sentence.

9.When his sentence was finished on 12 July 2025, he was transferred to CIC. In fact, the applicant wrote a letter with the help of his friend to the court, informing the court that he was at that time detained in CIC. On 6 August 2025, the Department of Justice also sent a letter, copied to the applicant, informing the court that the applicant was detained in CIC.

10.In the circumstances, it is plain and obvious that when the court delivered the Decision, it was posted to CIC in accordance with the address he provided.

11.The applicant explained that he received the order and the Decision on 21 November 2025, I believe that was the document resent by the court on 14 November to Tai Tam. I am prepared to accept what the applicant told me that he received the court’s order and the Decision late. I believe the applicant did receive the court’s order and the Decision on 21 November 2025.

12.However, even though he had received the court’s Decision on 21 November, he was still out of time. Even if I were to count the time limit for the appeal from the date of his receiving the Decision on 21 November 2025, he was still late for the appeal when he filed the Summons on 10 December 2025.

13.I accept that the delay is not lengthy. I also accept the applicant’s reason why he was late. However, while I accept the applicant’s reason for the delay, I find the reason for the delay was mainly the applicant’s fault.

14.As I have stated in the chronology earlier, the applicant had written a letter on 17 July 2025, informing the court that he was then detained in CIC. However, according to the applicant, he was only detained in CIC for 47 days and was then transferred to Tai Tam Gap. The court would have no information that he was already transferred because the Immigration Department did not inform the court and neither did the applicant inform the court of the new place of detention.

15.Since the applicant had written to court back in 17 July 2025 informing the court of his place of detention, in my view, he should have done the same when he was transferred from CIC to Tai Tam Gap. When this court asked the applicant why he did not then inform the court when he was transferred to Tai Tam Gap, he told me that he assumed the Immigration Department would inform the court.

16.In my view, this explanation is not reasonable. This is because he had written to the court before in July, informing the court of his place of detention. He would have reasonably done the same.

17.Most importantly is that, the applicant, up to this stage, has not provided any intended grounds of appeal against the Decision. I have given reasons in my Decision when dismissing the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review, stating that the applicant provided no grounds to support his intended review. Likewise, in the present intended appeal, he also provided no grounds at all.

Conclusion

18.Upon the court’s further clarification, the applicant stated that all he wanted was to be allowed more time to stay in Hong Kong. He repeated several times that his present intended application is not to challenge the Decision. Since his intended appeal is not to challenge the Decision, his reason for the appeal is simply to buy time and it is not an authentic application.

19.Since the applicant has confirmed that his friend has explained the contents of the Decision to him, he would have known his intended grounds of appeal if he genuinely wanted to challenge against the Decision. Without any grounds to support his intended appeal, I am not satisfied that there is a good prospect of success in his intended appeal against the Decision.

20.Whether to extend time to appeal is the discretion of the court. For the reasons stated above, I am disinclined to exercise my discretion to extend the time to the applicant to serve his appeal. The Summons is therefore dismissed.