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

HCAL 891/2021

[2026] HKCFI 4196

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 891 OF 2021

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Introduction

1.On 13 March 2026, the court sent an order (“Order”) together with the decision (“Decision”) of this court in the prescribed “Form Call-1” ([2026] HKCFI 1275) by ordinary post to the applicant’s last known address, which he also confirmed at the hearing on 13 January 2026.  

2.In the Decision, the court dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the Appeal Board’s decision dated 28 April 2021, dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 17 January 2021, rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.  

3.Pursuant to Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, the time limit for an appeal to the Court of Appeal is 14 days after an order of the court.  The deadline for the applicant to file his appeal would have been on 27 March 2026.  On 30 March 2026, after a delay of 3 days, the applicant issued a Summons together with a supporting affirmation to apply for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Order.  

4.At the hearing of the Summons, the applicant appeared in person and made submissions.

The Law

5.The applicable guidelines governing the discretion for allowing an extension of time to appeal against the 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 prospects 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

6.At the hearing, the applicant confirmed that he received the documents (the Order and the Decision) only 2 days before he filed the Summons.  He had confirmed that at all material times he resided at the same address but he could not understand why he received the Order and the Decision late. 

7.I do not accept the applicant’s explanation for the delay.  What the applicant just stated did not make sense.  There has been no change of address of his last known address.  He simply was not able to give an explanation as to why he only received the court’s documents late.  A delay of 3 days is not substantial. The applicant shall still be required to provide a reasonably satisfactory explanation for the delay.  

8.In the present case, I find it most disconcerting is the fact that the applicant’s intended appeal is, as he has clearly confirmed at the hearing, simply to buy time.  He has even confirmed at the hearing that he simply had no objections to the Decision.  It is therefore not surprising that in his supporting affirmation, he has not put forward any intended grounds of appeal.  

Conclusion

9.In the circumstances, since the applicant has not been able to provide a good reason, nor is he able to demonstrate any prospects of success, I therefore refuse to exercise my discretion to extend the time to the applicant to serve his appeal.

10.The Summons is therefore dismissed. 

The applicant appeared in person