Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1901/2020

[2026] HKCFI 3658

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1901 OF 2020

________________________

BETWEEN

	TARIQ KAMRAN	Applicant
and
	TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD	Putative Respondent
and
	DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION	Putative Interested Party

________________

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan in Chambers

Date of Decision:

20 July 2026

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

1.On 24 October 2025 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in dismissing his appeal regarding his non-refoulement claim upon finding that none of the grounds put forward by him reasonably arguable for his intended challenge, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the process before the Director of Immigration (“Director”) or the Board or in their decisions, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success in his intended application.

2.The Applicant now by a summons issued on 27 February 2026 seeks leave to appeal against that decision out of time, as the 14-day period for him to file his appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A ended on 7 November 2025, and hence he was more than 3 ½ months late with his intended appeal.

3.In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the Court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the prospect 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 Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346.

4.In the Applicant’s case, a delay of more than 3 ½ months must be considered as very substantial and inordinate, and in his supporting affirmation he merely gave some explanations for his earlier request to withdraw his leave application in September 2025 which was referred to in the Court’s decision at [13] but which did not in my view have any real bearing or relevancy to his subsequent failure to file his intended appeal on or before 7 November 2025 as required.

5.The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 24 October 2025 to his then reported address without being returned through undelivered post, and even if his assertions of any subsequent change of mind about his intended application were true that they cannot in my view form any good or proper justification for his subsequent delay with the filing of his intended appeal.

6.More importantly, nor did he put forward any proper or valid draft or proposed grounds of appeal, or any particulars of any error in the decision or why it may be reasonably arguable that the decision was unfair or unreasonable either in his summons or his affirmation. As such, and in the absence of any error in the decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not see any prospect of success in his intended appeal either.

7.In the premises, and for the reasons given, it would be futile to extend time for what appears to be a hopeless appeal. Accordingly, I refuse his application for leave to appeal out of time, and dismiss the Applicant’s summons.