Majeed Sajjad v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 378/2022

[2026] HKCFI 3942

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 378 OF 2022

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

Introduction

1.This is the Applicant’s application by summons dated 26 March 2026 for an extension of time to appeal the decision of this Court dated 10 March 2026 (the “Decision”) refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review. A hearing was conducted on 6 July 2026. The Applicant appeared in person.

2.In Jagg Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office[1], the Court of Appeal held, at [10], that in considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the court will take into account: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospects of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted.

Length of the delay and reasons for delay

3.Under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, where an application for leave to apply for judicial review is refused by a judge, the applicant may appeal against the judge’s order to the Court of Appeal within 14 days after such order.

4.The time to appeal, therefore, expired on 24 March 2026. The delay was two days, which is not too substantial.

5.In his summons and supporting affirmation, the Applicant alleged that he did not receive the Decision on time. This is, however, only a bare allegation without any particulars and substantiation. I do not accept his explanation for the delay.

Prospects of success of the intended appeal

6.The procedural history against which this application arose is as follows. On 1 August 2019, the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dismissed his claim for non-refoulement protection (the “Board’s Decision”). On 24 May 2022, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review out of time. In refusing his leave application, this Court held, inter alia, that the Board had carefully considered the Applicant’s evidence. The Board’s Decision was comprehensive with adequate reasons. This Court did not find any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision and was not satisfied the Applicant’s intended challenge of the same was reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success. As a result, the Applicant’s leave application was refused.

7.Now the Applicant seeks an extension of time to appeal the Decision. The Applicant’s summons and supporting affirmation, however, provides no grounds of appeal. At the hearing, the Applicant merely said that he wanted an extension of time so that he could obtain a Pakistani passport for his daughter. He is not suggesting anything wrong, whether of fact or of law, in the Decision. In my view, his intended appeal has no prospects of success.

Prejudice to the respondent

8.As I have held, the Applicant’s intended appeal has no prospects of success. To allow such a challenge to proceed when it is already out of time would only drain the intended respondent’s time and resources unnecessarily and cause prejudice.

Conclusion

9.While the delay is not too substantial, in view of the absence of any proper explanation for the delay, the lack of prospects of success in the intended appeal and the prejudice to the intended respondent, the application for an extension of time to appeal is refused.

The applicant was unrepresented and appeared in person.