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

HCAL 50/2022

[2026] HKCFI 4290

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 50 OF 2022

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

Introduction

1.The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 29 March 2021, the Director of Immigration refused the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim. The Applicant’s subsequent appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition was dismissed on 30 December 2021 (the “Board”, the “Board’s Decision”).

2.By a Form 86 filed on 13 January 2022, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the Board’s Decision (the “Leave Application”). The hearing took place on 27 January 2026. By my decision dated 11 March 2026, I refused to grant leave to the Application to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision (the “Court’s Decision”).

3.By a Summons filed on 13 April 2026, the Applicant seeks extension of time to appeal against my above decision, as the 14-day appeal period under O 53, r 3(4) of the RHC has expired by 26 March 2026 (the “EOT Summons”). In the Affirmation in support of the EOT Application, the Applicant claimed that he did not receive the Court’s Decision in time (the “EOT Affirmation”).

4.The EOT Summons was heard on 17 June 2026. The Applicant attended the hearing and stated that it is still unsafe for him to return to his home country and that his family’s lives are also in threat.  

Discussion

5.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 paras. 16-17.

6.The delay in the present case is 18 days. The Applicant has not provided any valid explanation for the delay. Apart from claiming that he received the Court’s Decision late, the Applicant has failed to adduce evidence to explain when exactly did he receive the Court’s Decision and why he has failed to lodge his appeal on time.

7.More Importantly, the Applicant has failed to identify any intended grounds of appeal against the Court’s Decision, whether in the EOT Summons, the EOT Affirmation or at the hearing of the EOT Summons. The Applicant has not alleged there to be any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Court’s Decision.

8.I have considered the Court’s Decision and the Board’s Decision in detail. The Board had considered and assessed the Applicant’s situation comprehensively and had provided reasons in support of its decision. The Court has reviewed the Board’s Decision and came to the correct decision that there is no realistic prospect of success in the intended challenge of the Board’s Decision: see the Court’s Decision paras. 7-12. I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Court’s Decision. Accordingly, I do not consider there to be any prospect of success in the intended appeal.

Conclusion

9.As there is no valid explanation for the delay and no prospect of success in the intended appeal, I will dismiss the EOT Summons.

The applicant appeared in person.