Kuldip Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 2487/2020

[2026] HKCFI 3731

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2487 OF 2020

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

The application

1.By my decision dated 8 January 2026, I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 10 December 2020 which refused the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.By a summons issued on 30 January 2026, the Applicant seeks an extension of time to appeal against my decision. As the 14-day appeal period under O.53, r.3(4) of the Rules of High Court expired on 22 January 2026, the Applicant is out of time in his intended appeal by 8 days.

3.The applicable principles are trite: the court shall have regard to (a) the length of the delay; (ii) the reasons for the delay; (iii) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (iv) the prejudice to the respondent if extension of time were granted (see Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226 and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346).

4.The Applicant explained at the hearing that the delay was occasioned because of financial difficulties. I do not find the explanation satisfactory.

5.Further, there is nothing in either the summons or the supporting affirmation to attempt to raise any proposed grounds of appeal or to identify any error in the decision. The Applicant simply stated that he would wish to get additional evidence to support his case (without explaining what those evidence might be).

6.At the hearing on 31 March 2026, the Applicant informed me that he did not wish to go back to his home country and would like to stay in Hong Kong. He further confirmed that he did not consider my decision to be incorrect. This in itself shows that the intended appeal has no prospect of success.

7.In the premises, it would be pointless to extend time for the Applicant’s intended appeal. I therefore dismiss the application.

The applicant was unrepresented and appeared in person.