Iqbal Zafar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 314/2022

[2026] HKCFI 4291

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 314 OF 2022

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

Introduction

1.The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 8 December 2015, 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 Office was dismissed on 28 April 2022 (the “Board”, the “Board’s Decision”).

2.By a Form 86 filed on 10 May 2022, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the Board’s Decision (the “Leave Application”). The hearing took place on 19 January 2026. By my decision dated 10 February 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 19 March 2026, the Applicant seeks extension of time to appeal against the Court’s Decision (the “EOT Summons”), as the 14-day appeal period under O 53, r 3(4) of the RHC has expired by 25 February 2026. In both the EOT Summons and the Affirmation in support of the EOT Summons (“the EOT Affirmation”), the Applicant claimed that she did not receive the Court’s Decision on time.

4.The EOT Summons was heard on 17 June 2026. At the hearing, the Applicant said that the situation in his home country was still not safe. The Applicant also produced a copy of his wife’s death certificate. When asked about the relevance of the document, the Applicant said it was to support his statement that his wife passed away.

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 23 days. The Applicant has failed to put forward any valid explanation for his delay in lodging the intended appeal. While the Applicant claimed that he received the Court’s Decision late, he has not adduced any evidence on when exactly did he receive the Court’s Decision and why he has failed to lodge the intended appeal in 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 Application or at the hearing of the EOT Summons.

8.At the hearing of the EOT Summons, the Applicant only reiterated that his life would be at risk if he has to return to his home country. The Applicant has not alleged there to be any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Court’s Decision.

9.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 §§4-10. I do not consider there to be any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Court’s Decision. Accordingly, I fail to see any prospect of success in the intended appeal.

Conclusion

10.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.