Rashid Zaman v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1756/2021

[2026] HKCFI 3885

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1756 OF 2021

_____________

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

Summons

1.By summons (“Summons”) dated 4 May 2026, the applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal against the order of this court (“Order”) dated 10 April 2026, dismissing the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). In the decision in the prescribed Form Call-1 of the same date (“Decision”) ([2026] HKCFI 1670), the court dismissed the Leave Application against the Appeal Board’s decision dated 21 October 2021 in respect of his appeals against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 31 December 2018 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court (“Rules”), an applicant may appeal to the Court of Appeal against an order refusing leave within 14 days after such refusal. The 14-day period for the applicant to appeal against the Order expired on 25 April 2026. Hence, the applicant’s intended appeal is late for around 10 days.

3.In giving effect to the underlying objectives of O.1A of the Rules, and to promote procedural economy, this court decides that it is expedient to dispose of the Summons on paper in lieu of a hearing.

The Law

4.The applicable guidelines governing the discretion for deciding whether to allow an extension of time to appeal against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review are as follows. The court shall have regard to: (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the prospect of success of the intended appeal; and (iv) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted: see Re MK HCMP 2609/2016, 10 January 2017; Chu On Fong Winter v The Appeal Panel (Housing) HCMP 982/2017, 20 July 2017; Islam Raja Rais v Director of Immigration HCMP 881/2017, 26 June 2017; Re Gurang Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346; and Nguyen Thi Hong Thuy [2024] HKCA 1172.

Discussion

5.In the affirmation in support of the Summons, the applicant stated that he only received the Order on 30 April 2026 after the time-limit for the appeal had expired.

6.I do not accept the applicant’s purported reason for the delay as it is only a bare assertion.

7.Whilst I do not regard a delay of 10 days is a lengthy delay, the applicant shall still be required to provide a good reason for the delay. I do not find the applicant has shown any good reason.

8.Regarding the prospects of success, the applicant has not provided any grounds in support of his intended appeal. All he stated in the supporting affirmation was that he still had problems at home and that he would be killed by his enemies if he returned. His alleged problems at home are not valid grounds at all.

Conclusion

9.Having regard to the absence of good reason, and more importantly, a complete lack of any prospects of success in the present intended appeal, I therefore refuse to exercise my discretion to grant an extension of time to the applicant to serve his appeal out of time.

10.The Summons is therefore dismissed.

The Applicant is not represented