Case Document

100%

HCAL 1188/2021

[2026] HKCFI 5541

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1188 OF 2021

____________

BETWEEN

	Mohammed Aslam	Applicant
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative Respondent

____________

Before:

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

Date of Hearing:	18 September 2026
Date of Handing Down of Decision:	30 September 2026

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

Background

1.By way of summons filed on 17 July 2026 (“the Summons”), the applicant applies for an extension of time to appeal against my order made on 29 April 2026, which dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 9 August 2021.

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 29 April 2026, the last day for the applicant to lodge an appeal was on 13 May 2026. Thus, the time for appealing against my order has 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 in his supporting affirmation dated 17 July 2026, the applicant explained his delay in lodging the appeal by saying that he was not aware that his judicial review application had been dismissed, and he was not “aware of appeal”.

8.At the hearing of the Summons on 18 September 2026, the applicant explained his delay by saying that he did not fully understand this court’s letter because it was in English, and it took him about a month to find a friend to help him.

9.The applicant’s explanations at the oral hearing are not consistent with the reasons given in the Summons and his supporting affirmation. What he stated in the Summons and the supporting affirmation suggested that he did not receive this court’s decision at all, but at the oral hearing, the applicant confirmed that he did receive this court’s decision and he did not fully understand it because it was in English.

10.In any event, it was not reasonable for the applicant to take about a month to find a friend to explain this court’s decision to him. The applicant should have acted immediately or soonest after receiving this court’s decision. Thus, I do not find that the reasons given by the applicant for his lateness in filing the intended appeal were reasonable.

11.Moreover, the applicant did not give any valid ground for his intended appeal. In the Summons and his supporting affirmation dated 17 July 2026, there was simply no ground of appeal mentioned. At the oral hearing on 18 September 2026, when I asked the applicant for his grounds of appeal, he simply said that he wanted to appeal because he still had problem in his country and he could not go back because of monetary issues. These cannot be valid grounds for his intended appeal.

12.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).

13.The applicant has failed to demonstrate any of the above, and hence there is simply no valid ground for the intended appeal.

14.As 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 appeal, I am not prepared to grant any extension of time for the applicant to pursue such a hopeless appeal.

Conclusion

15.For reasons aforesaid, the Summons is dismissed.