Sukhdev Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

HCAL 37/2021

[2026] HKCFI 4579

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 37 OF 2021

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.On 22 October 2025 I refused to extend time to the late application of the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in allowing the withdrawal of his appeal regarding his non-refoulement claim at his own request upon finding no good reason for his serious delay of 5 months with his application, that none of the grounds put forward by him reasonably arguable for his intended challenge, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the process before the Director of Immigration (“Director”) or the Board or in their decisions, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success in his intended application.

2.The Applicant now by a summons issued on 14 May 2026 seeks leave to appeal against that decision out of time, as the 14-day period for him to file his appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A ended on 5 November 2025, and hence he was more than 6 months late with his intended appeal.

3.In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the Court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (iv) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted: see Re MK HCMP 2609/2016, 10 January 2017; Chu On Fong Winter v The Appeal Panel (Housing) HCMP 982/2017, 20 July 2017; Islam Raja Rais v Director of Immigration HCMP 881/2017, 26 June 2017; Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346.

4.In the Applicant’s case, a delay of more than 6 months must be considered as very substantial and inordinate, for which he just asserted in his affirmation that he never received the decision in the mail without any further evidence to corroborate his bare assertion or any explanation as to how he was able to find out about the decision which he now wants to appeal.

5.The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 22 October 2025 to his then reported address without being returned through undelivered post, and in the absence of any evidence to corroborate his barest of assertion, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has provided any good reason or justification for his serious delay.

6.More importantly, nor has he put forward any proper or valid draft or proposed grounds of appeal, or any particulars of any error in the decision or why it may be reasonably arguable that the decision was unfair or unreasonable either in his summons or his affirmation when the fact is that the Board withdrew his appeal at his own request upon being satisfied that he had good reason to do so and that he was fully aware of the consequences of his decision. As such, and in the absence of any error in the decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not see any prospect of success in his intended appeal either.

7.In the premises, and for the reasons given, it would be futile to extend time for what appears to be a hopeless appeal. Accordingly, I refuse the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal out of time, and dismiss his summons.

The Applicant was unrepresented