Ali Mamoon v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 523/2021

[2026] HKCFI 2130

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 523 OF 2021

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

Introduction

1.The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 18 March 2019, he initiated his claim for non-refoulement protection. In gist, he feared the he will be harmed or even killed by his political opponents, including his own relatives who had taken possession of his home after his parents died, if he were to be refouled. The claim was assessed by the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) on all applicable grounds. By a decision dated 18 April 2019, the DOI dismissed his claim.

2.The Applicant subsequently challenged the decision before the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “TCAB”). By the decision dated 7 April 2021 (the “TCAB Decision”), the TCAB dismissed his petition.

3.By a Form 86 filed on 14 April 2021 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the TCAB Decision. By a decision dated 19 December 2025 [2025] HKCFI 5957 (the “Court Decision”), the court dismissed the application on the ground that the intended judicial review against the TCAB Decision is not reasonably arguable. Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, the Applicant had 14 days to appeal the Court Decision had he wished to do so. That period had expired.

4.By the Summons filed on 14 January 2026, the Applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal against the Court Decision (the “Application”). The Applicant requested for a hearing and attended the same.

5.The Application was heard before me on 4 March 2026. When asked the reason for his delay, he said that he only received the letter 10 to 11 days prior to the hearing, and that he did not check the mailbox earlier. When asked if he had anything to add, he said he had nothing.

Discussion

6.Under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, where an application for leave to judicial review is refused by a judge, the applicant may appeal against the judge’s order within 14 days after such order.

7.In considering whether to grant an extension of time, the court will take into consideration of: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of success in the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if the extension of time was granted: Re Mijares Jero Oliveros [2025] HKCA 744 at [12]; Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702 at [18]; Re Rahman Wasif [2019] HKCA 299 at [13]. In particular, the prospect of success of the intended appeal is of crucial consideration: Re Kpamou Gbotoi Bernard [2019] HKCA 168 at [15]; Re Irshad Muhammad [2018] HKCA 864 at [16].

8.There was a delay in the Application by a few days in the present case.

9.In his supporting affirmation, he explained the reasons for his delay. He states “…Unfortunately I have no received letter on time that’s why I am apply extension of time…” I have also considered the Applicant’s oral evidence. I do not consider this explanation for delay satisfactory. The Court Decision was duly handed down and the reason for delay was, as the Applicant admits, due to his failure of checking his mailbox late. However, as the delay was relatively short, I am prepared to grant indulgence to extend time if there is merit in the Applicant’s intended appeal.

10.The Applicant did not state any grounds for his intended appeal in his summons and supporting affirmation. At the hearing, he also did not advance any ground for the intended appeal. Further, as stated in the Court Decision, there was no merit in the application for leave to apply for judicial review. The Applicant did not put forward any valid grounds of review. Now, he has not identified any intended grounds of appeal. I am not satisfied that there are merits to the present Application.

11.Given the above, I do not consider it necessary to discuss any potential prejudice caused to the putative respondent.

12.All in all, there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay, and more importantly, no prospect of success in the intended appeal. Accordingly, I refuse to extend time and the Application is dismissed.

The applicant was unrepresented and appeared in person