Umair Muhammad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 537/2021

[2026] HKCFI 2131

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 537 OF 2021

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

Introduction

1.The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 30 December 2019, the Applicant filed his claim for non-refoulment protection. In gist, he feared the he will be harmed or killed by his uncle and his two sons due to a land dispute. The claim was assessed by the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) on all applicable grounds. By a decision dated 24 January 2020, 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 8 April 2021 (the “TCAB Decision”), the TCAB dismissed his petition.

3.By a Form 86 filed on 16 April 2021 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the TCAB Decision. The Applicant requested for a hearing and was absent from the hearing. By a decision dated 19 December 2025 [2025] HKCFI 5984 (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 16 January 2026, the Applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal against the Court Decision (the “Application”).

5.The Application was heard before me on 4 March 2026. He was absent from the hearing. I see no irregularity in the notification of his attendance.

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.The Applicant explains the reasons for his delay in his summons. He states “…Please extend the time period, to appeal in the Court of Appeal. I am so sorry that I did not receive any letter from the court, so I could not apply on time, because I received court’s letter very late. I request you, please you help me and I don’t have money and I can’t hire a lawyer. I still have life danger in my home country, Pakistan. I request you, please extend the time. Please give me a chance and help me because it is matter of my life…”. I do not consider this explanation for delay satisfactory. The Court Decision was duly handed down and a copy was sent to the Applicant by post with no record of returned mail as at the date of this decision. As for his lack of money and inability to hire a lawyer, I will turn to consider this with the merits below. 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 states in his supporting affirmation “I am applicant herein and I make this affirmation in support of my Summons in the Court of First Instance, against the decision of Director of Immigration, Torture claims appeal board and Court’s decision. The Decisions are unlawful. I appeal to Honourable Court, please exited the time. I have life danger in my home Country, the Pakistan. I request you, please grant me leave, to apply for judicial review, so that I am able to got legal assistance from the Legal Aid Department. …” I note that these matters concerning the alleged danger to his life have been fully ventilated in the hearings below, and have been considered by the TCAB and this Court: see [8] of the Court Decision. In any event, they do not support any grounds of appeal, and do not begin to challenge the correctness of the TCAB Decision or the Court Decision. It is trite that an appeal is not simply the opportunity for an applicant to re-run the same arguments again without demonstrating where the first instance decision went wrong. I do not consider there to be any prospect of success in the present Application.

11.Given the above, it is not necessary for me to consider 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 did not appear.