Case Document

100%

HCAL 1907/2025

[2026] HKCFI 4610

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1907 OF 2025

____________

BETWEEN

	Salauddin Md	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

____________

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge Michael WONG in Chambers (Open to Public)

Date of Hearing:	6 August 2026
Date of Handing Down of Decision:	19 August 2026

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

Background

1.By way of summons filed on 18 June 2026 (“the Summons”), the applicant applies for an extension of time to appeal against my order made on 20 May 2026, which dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 29 July 2025.

2.Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A, stipulates that “Where an application for leave is refused by a judge …, the applicant may appeal against the judge’s order to the Court of Appeal within 14 days after such order”.

3.In Re Li Jing [2015] 2 HKLRD 933, it was held that the time for lodging an appeal against the refusal of granting leave to apply for judicial review started to run from the date of the making of the order, not from the date when the sealed order was issued, nor from the date when the sealed order was mailed, and no account should be taken of the fact that the applicant received the sealed order late (see also Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226).

4.As my order was made on 20 May 2026, the last day for the applicant to lodge an appeal was on 3 June 2026. The time for appealing against my order has therefore expired, and the applicant requires leave from this court to appeal out of time.

The applicable law

5.In considering whether to extend time for appealing a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the court will take into account: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted (see Jagg Singh v Torture Claims Appeal Board and another [2020] HKCA 844).

6.However, the crucial consideration in such an application is whether the applicant can show that there is a reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review (see Re Gurung Min Bahadur, supra), and the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued (see Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702).

Discussion

7.In the Summons and his supporting affirmation dated 18 June 2026, the applicant explained his delay in lodging the appeal by saying that he received the court’s letter and order on 12 June 2026 and it was out of time to appeal. However, he did not explain why or how he received the order on 12 June 2026 and not earlier.

8.At the hearing of the Summons on 6 August 2026, the applicant was absent and hence he did not explain his delay further. The applicant’s explanation in the Summons and his supporting affirmation is clearly not satisfactory, as it was just a bare allegation that he received the letter and the order late without giving any reason why it was late.

9.The applicant did not provide any valid ground for his intended appeal either. In the Summons and his supporting affirmation, the applicant merely said that his problem was very severe and still existed in his country, his enemies were still looking for him and if he returned there, he would be killed by his enemies.

10.For this application to be successful, the applicant must demonstrate that this court had made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before this court or was otherwise plainly wrong (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524).

11.The applicant failed to demonstrate any of the above. Hence, there is simply no valid ground for the intended appeal or the intended judicial review.

12.In the circumstances, there is no satisfactory explanation for the applicant’s delay in lodging the intended appeal and there is no reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review. I am not prepared to grant any extension of time for the applicant to pursue such a hopeless appeal.

Conclusion

13.For reasons aforesaid, the Summons is dismissed.