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

HCAL 1265/2020

[2026] HKCFI 2348

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1265 OF 2020

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

Introduction

1.The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. He entered Hong Kong illegally on 21 August 2016, and was arrested by the police on the same day.

2.The Applicant completed the Non-refoulement Claim Form on 19 November 2018. In gist, the Applicant claimed that he was at risk of being seriously harmed in Pakistan by members and supporters of the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) because of his involvement with and support of the Pakistan People’s Party, and that he was at risk of imprisoned and killed by the police after he was framed and accused of having a sexual affair with a man.

3.On 10 December 2018, the Director of Immigration refused the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim. The Applicant’s subsequent appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) was dismissed on 10 June 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”).

4.By Form 86 filed on 23 June 2020, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the Board’s Decision (the “Leave Application”). The hearing of the Leave Application took place on 28 July 2025 and the Applicant attended in person. The Applicant did not provide any grounds in support of the Leave Application in the Form 86. In the supporting Affirmation, the Applicant simply stated that he did not agree with the Board’s Decision. At the hearing on 28 July 2025, the Applicant indicated that he had nothing to say in respect of the Leave Application. The Applicant has never explained why he contended that the Board’s Decision was erroneous.

5.By the decision dated 18 September 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 4292) (the “Court’s Decision”), this Court dismissed the Leave Application on the ground that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success.

6.By the Summons filed on 24 November 2025, the Applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal against the Court’s Decision, as the 14-day period for him to file the appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court had expired (the “Application”).

7.The Application was heard on 12 January 2026 and the Applicant attended in person. At the hearing, when being asked about the delay in filing the Application, the Applicant said he has never received the Court’s Decision. He further stated that he has not read the Court’s Decision. I then asked if the Applicant has neither received nor read the Court’s Decision, how he could contend the Court’s Decision to be erroneous. The Applicant could not provide any satisfactory answer, but insisted that he has not received or read the Court’s Decision. He said the Immigration Department wanted to send him back to his country, and he was told that his court case has been concluded. The Applicant said someone helped him to prepare the Application. The Court’s Decision is of course publicly available and the Applicant has not explained why he did not try to obtain a copy of the Court’s Decision and read it when he was told that the court case had been concluded, even if he indeed did not receive the Court’s Decision by post beforehand.

8.I further drew the Applicant’s attention to the Summons in which it was stated that the grounds of the proposed appeal were annexed thereto. However, there is no such annex attached to the Summons. The Applicant appeared to be confused and said the Application was prepared by someone else. I then asked him whether he has the alleged grounds with him and he confirmed that the Summons only contains two pages (i.e. with no annex).

9.The Applicant then said he has one further document to submit. The document is not in English and there is no translation provided. I asked the Applicant to explain what that document is and its relevance. The Applicant said it is a First Information Report showing an alleged “rape” charge against him. The Applicant has not explained the relevance of the document, whether it was adduced before the Board, and if not, why. There is no formal application to adduce such further evidence. I have considered the translation of the document. The document appears to be a complaint form, and there is no evidence on the outcome of the investigation. In any event, there is simply insufficient information explaining the nature and the relevance of the document to the Application. In the premises, I refuse to admit such document in the Application.

10.Apart from the above, the Applicant indicated that he had nothing to say in respect of the Application.

Discussion

11.In considering whether to extend the time to appeal, it is trite that the court will take into account: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason(s) for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the degree of prejudice to the other party if an extension of time is granted. The prospect of success of an intended appeal is important. The court will not grant an extension of time to appeal for a hopeless appeal to be pursued. (see Re Mushtaq Imran Ali [2025] HKCA 705, at §§16-17)

12.In the present case, there was delay of about 1.5 months. In the supporting Affirmation, the Applicant stated that he has never received the Court’s Decision. That was also the explanation provided by the Applicant at the hearing on 12 January 2026. I have reservation about the truthfulness of the Applicant’s explanation. There is no documentary evidence in support of the Applicant’s explanation. The Court’s Decision was issued to the Applicant at the address provided by the Immigration Department on 9 July 2025, which the Applicant himself had confirmed to be his address before the hearing on 28 July 2025. The Applicant has not filed any Notice of Change of Address to date, despite having a new address stated on the Summons. It is the duty of a litigant to give the Court an address to which correspondence or notice can come to his attention in a timely manner. The consequence of any delay or failure occasioned by the ineffectiveness of such an address would fall on the shoulder of the litigant (Re Hasmi Rizwan Imran [2018] HKCA 439, at §15).

13.Despite the lack of satisfactory explanation for the delay, I shall still proceed to consider the merit of the intended appeal before deciding on the Application.

14.In the Summons and in the supporting Affirmation, the Applicant did not provide any grounds in support of the intended appeal. Despite being given a further opportunity to make submissions in respect of the Application at the hearing on 12 January 2026, the Applicant indicated that he had nothing to say in respect of the Application. In fact, based on what the Applicant said at the hearing, he has neither received nor read the Court’s Decision. Accordingly, it is difficult to understand how he can contend the Court’s Decision to be erroneous. For completeness, as I have mentioned above, even if the Applicant did not receive the Court’s Decision by post as alleged, he should be able to obtain a copy of the decision and read it when he was told that the court case has been concluded. It is incredible that the Applicant and/or his alleged friend would have filed the Application without even considering the Court’s Decision.

15.I have considered the Court’s Decision together with the Board’s Decision in detail. The Board had plainly considered and assessed the Applicant’s situation comprehensively and had provided reasons in support of its decision. The Court had reviewed the Board’s Decision and came to the correct decision that there is no realistic prospect of success in the intended challenge of the Board’s Decision (§6 thereof). I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Court’s Decision. Neither has the Applicant made any such allegations. Accordingly, I fail to see any prospect of success in the intended appeal.

Conclusion

16.As there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay, and more importantly no prospect of success in the intended appeal, I refuse to extend the time for the appeal. The Application is hereby dismissed.

The applicant was unrepresented and appeared in person.