Noor Ahmed v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 2498/2020

[2026] HKCFI 3732

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2498 OF 2020

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

The application

1.By my decision dated 26 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 6 November 2020 which refused the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.By a summons issued on 20 February 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 9 February 2026, the Applicant is out of time in his intended appeal by 11 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 he could not read and write English and was unable to find anyone to assist him in bringing the appeal. In the affirmation the Applicant also asserted that he did not receive the Court order (presumably until it was quite late). I do not find any of the explanations 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 did not agree with my decision, that he would continue to be in danger if he was to return to his home country. These are self-evidently not good enough to show an arguable appeal.

6.I have asked the Applicant to identify his proposed grounds of appeal at the hearing on 31 March 2026. His answer was that he wanted to stay in Hong Kong to look after his wife who is unwell, and in fact did not consider my decision to be wrong. Plainly this means that the proposed appeal is without merit.

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.