Saiful Sikdar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 395/2022

[2026] HKCFI 4292

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 395 OF 2022

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

Introduction

1.The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh. On 27 June 2018, 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 7 May 2019 (the “Board”, the “Board’s Decision”).

2.By a Form 86 filed on 27 May 2022, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the Board’s Decision (the “Leave Application”) and leave to take out the Leave Application out of time. By my decision dated 25 February 2026, I refused to extend time for the Applicant to take out the Leave Application and further refused the Leave Application (the “Court’s Decision”).

3.By a Summons filed on 13 March 2026, the Applicant seeks extension of time to appeal against the Court’s Decision (the “EOT Summons”, the “EOT Application”), 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 by 11 March 2026. In the Affirmation in support of the EOT Application (“the EOT Affirmation”), the Applicant claimed that he received the Court’s Decision late. He further said he has severe problems in his home country and he would be killed by his enemies if he returns to his home country.

4.The EOT Application was heard on 16 June 2026 and the Applicant attended in person. At the hearing, the Applicant handed up various documents, including (1) a birth certificate of the Applicant’s daughter issued by the Births and Deaths Registry, Hong Kong; (2) a hospital discharge slip issued by Kwong Wah Hospital; (3) a referral letter issued by Kwong Wah Hospital for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk control as the Applicant is a smoker with hyperlipidemia; (4) an appointment slip issued by Kwong Wah Hospital stating that the Applicant will have an Echocardiogram in October 2027; and (5) some documents in which the Applicant relies on to show that he and his family are still not safe in Bangladesh. The documents are in Bengali and the Applicant has not provided any English/Chinese translation of these documents (collectively, the “New Documents”).

5.While the New Documents were clearly submitted late without any valid explanation, for fairness’ sake, I will consider them in the EOT Application.

Discussion

6.In considering whether to extend the time to appeal, 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.

7.The delay is for 3 days, which is not long. However, the Applicant has not provided any valid explanation for the delay. The Applicant believes that the Court has sent the Court’s Decision to him on time but he did not receive it until 12 March 2026 and it was already out of time for him to lodge an appeal. The Applicant has not adduced any evidence to prove his above assertion or explain why he has received it late.

8.More importantly, the Applicant has not identified any intended grounds of appeal in the EOT Summons or EOT Affirmation. The Applicant has not alleged there to be any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Court’s Decision. At the hearing of the EOT Summons, the Applicant only repeated that the situation in Bangladesh is very bad and that his life would be at risk if he returns to his home country. As for the New Documents, they do not add anything to the EOT Application.

9.I have considered the Court’s Decision together with 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 no extension of time should be given for the Applicant to take out the Leave Application. Furthermore, the Leave Application should be rejected as there is no realistic prospect of success in the intended challenge of the Board’s Decision: see Court’s Decision paras. §§5-16. I do not consider there to be 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

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

The applicant appeared in person.