Case Document

100%

CAMP 186/2025, [2026] HKCA 1733

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 716

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 186 OF 2025

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2497 OF 2019)

_________________

BETWEEN

	QAISAR NAVEED	Applicant
	and
	TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE	Putative Respondent
	and
	DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION	Putative Interested Party

_________________

Before :

Hon Au and Anthony Chan JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions :	15 July 2026
Date of Judgment :	9 October 2026

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1.On 10 March 2026, this Court (Anthony Chan JA and Wilson Chan J) handed down a Judgment ([2026] HKCA 154) (“Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s summons filed on 16 September 2025 (“Summons”) applying for an extension of time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K. W. Lung (“Judge”) dated 11 March 2025 (“Leave Decision”) refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review concerned the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the Applicant’s application, as well as this Court’s reasons for dismissing it, were set out in the Judgment. We will not repeat them here.

3.By a Notice of Motion filed on 3 July 2026, the Applicant now applies for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”).

4.Pursuant to s.24(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“Ordinance”), the Notice of Motion should have been filed within 28 days from the date of the Judgment, i.e., 8 April 2026. This application is out of time by almost three months.

5.The Applicant has not made any application for an extension of time to file the Notice of Motion. However, this Court may exercise its discretion to grant an extension of time pursuant to s.24(5) of the Ordinance provided good grounds are shown by the Applicant: see Re Rajaram Razeena [2019] HKCA 959 at [1.4].

6.In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant stated :

“I am the applicant; In the order give to the Court There are Some error in my decision Decision maker just relied on Col-information and my Previous Facts which were favor on reject my claims. Actual life different situation the mentioned Col-information Immigration officer and Hong Kong High Court’s prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towords minorities searching for unrealistic silverlining. The decision is betra bias and formula approach unlikely fair access the danger of my life and clcute to reject my claim. I want to inform to the Court my first Judicial review hearing that time I am detainee Lai Chi Kok Remand Centre without my appearing High Court Judge dismissed my Judicial review application.”.

7.The Applicant lodged written submissions on 15 July 2026 in which he generally claimed that the Board’s decision was unreasonable, irrational and procedurally unfair and annexed nine pages of general statements of public law. There are no particulars showing how these grounds are engaged or can be established in his case.

8.There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of the present type on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing in accordance with para.3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

9.The matters stated in the Notice of Motion do not constitute any proper ground for granting leave to appeal to the CFA. The Applicant has not raised any question of great general or public importance for the CFA to consider, as required by s.22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under s.22(1)(b).

10.The matters set out in the Notice of Motion are bare assertions. The Notice of Motion did not identify any error in the Judgment. The same can be said of the written submissions. There is no merit in this application.

11.In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant stated that he was a detainee at “Lai Chi Kok Remand Centre” at the time of the first judicial hearing. This would have been the hearing before the Judge on 5 February 2025. The Applicant did not raise this matter before this Court at the hearing of the Summons. The Judge did not refuse the Applicant’s leave application because of his absence from the hearing but because of his failure to show any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s decision (Leave Decision, [12]-[16]). This Court had considered carefully the Judge’s reasons for dismissing the leave application and was unable to see any arguable ground of appeal against the same (Judgment, [10]).

12.As for the delay in filing the Notice of Motion, the Applicant has not provided any explanation. We do not find that there is any ground to grant an extension of time.

13.For these reasons, we refuse to grant an extension of time and dismiss the Notice of Motion with no order as to costs.