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

HCAL 1962/2020

[2026] HKCFI 3882

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1962 OF 2020

_____________

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

Summons

1.By summons (“Summons”) dated 29 April 2026, the applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal against the order of this court (“Order”) dated 5 January 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”) ([2025] HKCFI 6296); corrigendum at [2026] HKCFI 1660), the court dismissed the Leave Application against the Appeal Board’s decision dated 2 July 2020 in respect of his appeals against the decisions of the Director of Immigration dated 24 July 2013 and 15 October 2018 2020 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 20 January 2026. Hence, the applicant’s intended appeal is late for around 3 and ½ months.

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.According to the 13-page document attached to the affirmation in support of the Summons, the applicant has been in detention. He stated that the reason for the delay was due to the difficulty in finding “educated” people to help him prepare documents.

6.I do not accept the applicant’s purported reason for the delay. The applicant was not legally represented at the hearing of the Leave Application before this court on 4 December 2025. However, not only was the applicant able to make submissions at the hearing, he had also sent to the court a number of letters explaining his situation before the hearing. He had not expressed any difficulty in presenting the case himself.

7.A delay of more than 3 months is substantial. Hence, a good reason shall be required. I do not find the applicant has shown any good reason.

8.Regarding the prospects of success, the applicant’s only complaint against the Decision was that this court had reached the Decision unfairly without allowing him any opportunity to clarify his case and situation in his home country. I do not find that there is any substance in the applicant’s allegations. At the hearing that lasted for more than an hour, this court went through all the letters that he sent to the court before the hearing, and received his submissions until he informed the court that he had nothing further to say.

9.Apart from the said unfounded allegations, the applicant advanced no other grounds in support of his intended appeal.

Conclusion

10.Having regard to the lengthy delay, the absence of good reason and 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.

11.The Summons is therefore dismissed.

The Applicant is not represented