Ahmmad Md Munsur v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1377/2021

[2026] HKCFI 4200

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1377 OF 2021

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

Introduction

1.The Applicant is a Bangladeshi.  He sneaked into Hong Kong from Shenzhen by boat on 25 December 2012 and was arrested by the Hong Kong police on 26 December 2012.  He subsequently lodged his non-refoulement claim. 

2.The Applicant’s non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration on 27 December 2013 and 17 December 2018.  The Applicant’s subsequent appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) was dismissed on 26 August 2021 (the “Board’s Decision”).

3.By Form 86 filed on 30 September 2021, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the Board’s Decision (the “Leave Application”). The hearing of the Leave Application took place on 12 January 2026.  Proper notice of the hearing was given to the Applicant but the Applicant did not attend the hearing.  As a result, the Court proceeded to decide the Leave Application in the absence of the Applicant. 

4.By the decision dated 27 April 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 949) (the “Court’s Decision”), this Court dismissed the Leave Application on the ground that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success.

5.By the Summons filed on 29 June 2026, the Applicant applied for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s Decision, as the 14‑day period for him to file the appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court had expired (the “Application”).

6.The Application was heard on 20 July 2026 and the Applicant attended in person.  At the hearing, when being asked about the delay in making the Application, the Applicant apologised for the delay, and said he only found out the Court’s Decision when he was informed of the same by the Immigration Department when he reported there on 2 June 2026. Thereafter, his friend helped him to file the Application.  The Applicant said he had not read the Court’s Decision himself.  He however confirmed that the address he has provided to the Court remains accurate.  

7.In respect of the Application, the Applicant simply stated that he wanted to stay in Hong Kong. Apart from that, he indicated that he had nothing to say in respect of the Application.

Discussion

8.In considering whether to extend the time to appeal, it is trite that the court will take into account: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason(s) for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the degree of prejudice to the other party if an extension of time is granted.  The prospect of success of an intended appeal is important.  The court will not grant an extension of time to appeal for a hopeless appeal to be pursued.  (see Re Mushtaq Imran Ali [2025] HKCA 705, at §§16-17)

9.In the present case, there was delay of about 6 weeks. The Court’s Decision was duly sent to the address provided by the Applicant to the Court, which the Applicant confirmed to be accurate at the hearing on 20 July 2026.  The Court has not received any returned mail to date.  In the premises, I do not accept that the Applicant did not receive the Court’s Decision in April 2026.  It is the duty of a litigant to provide the Court with an address to which correspondence or notice can come to his attention in a timely manner.  The consequence of any delay or failure occasioned by the ineffectiveness of such an address would fall on the shoulders of the litigant (Re Hasmi Rizwan Imran [2018] HKCA 439, at §15). 

10.Despite the lack of satisfactory explanation for the delay, I shall still proceed to consider the merit of the intended appeal before deciding on the Application.

11.In the Summons and in the supporting Affirmation, the Applicant did not provide any grounds in support of the intended appeal.  Despite being given a further opportunity to make submissions in respect of the Application at the hearing on 20 July 2026, the Applicant had not provided any valid grounds in support of the Application.

12.In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant.  If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed.  The Court of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6)). 

13.I have considered the Court’s Decision together with the Board’s Decision in detail.  The Board had considered and provided adequate and valid reasons in dismissing the Applicant’s case.  The Applicant did not provide any valid grounds in support of the Leave Application.  The Court had reviewed the Board’s Decision, and came to the decision that there is no realistic prospect of success in the intended challenge of the Board’s Decision (§§6-7 thereof).  I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Court’s Decision. Neither has the Applicant made any such allegations.  It is incumbent upon the Applicant to demonstrate with sufficient particulars that the Court had erred in the Court’s Decision.  The Applicant has plainly failed to do so.  Accordingly, I fail to see any prospect of success in the intended appeal. 

Conclusion

14.As there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay, and more importantly no prospect of success in the intended appeal, I refuse to extend the time for the appeal.  The Application is hereby dismissed.

The applicant was unrepresented and appeared in person