Azeem Nasir v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1511/2020

[2026] HKCFI 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 1511 OF 2020

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

The application

1.The applicant is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission and he lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director rejected his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). As the applicant’s appeal was out of time, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), refused to extend time for him to file his notice of appeal, effectively dismissed his appeal.

2.Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the applicant filed Form No. 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.By Form CALL-1 dated 12 July 2022 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court granted leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. The Court further ordered that the applicant should issue the originating summons within 14 days after the decision.

4.The Court’s decision was sent to the applicant on 12 July 2022 at his last known address without being returned from the Post Office. He is deemed to receive the Court’s decision[1].

5.The time for filing the originating summons expired on 26 July 2022[2].

6.By letter lodged on 3 February 2026, the applicant applied for extension of time to issue the originating summons for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. He is late for more than 3 years and 6 months. The applicant asked for 14 days to issue the originating summons.

7.The applicant admitted that he had delayed the application because he is not an educated person and he apologized.

Discussion

8.Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A and Order 53, rule 3(3) of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reason, I decide to determine this application on paper without an oral hearing[3].

9.The reason under paragraph 7 is not valid for his delay.

10.It is clear that the Board had not considered the merits of the applicant’s case. The Court decides to give the applicant one final chance to take out an application for leave for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. In view of the long delay and lack of good reasons, the Court decides to impose a “unless order” on the applicant in terms as follows:

“Unless within 14 days of the service of this order, the applicant files the originating summons in accordance with Order 53, rule 5(5) of the Rules of the High Court, the applicant’s application shall be dismissed without further order of this Court.”

The applicant was unrepresented.