Saeed Ur Rehman v. Director of Immigration and Another

HCAL 1328/2026

[2026] HKCFI 5772

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1328 OF 2026

________________________

________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

A. Introduction

1.By my Decision dated 13 August 2026, [2026] HKCFI 4389, I dismissed the Applicant’s intended judicial review challenge to the Determination of the Registration of Persons Tribunal made on 21 May 2026, by which it held that the Applicant does not have the right of abode (“ROA”) in Hong Kong, and is not a Hong Kong Permanent Resident (“HKPR”).

2.The application was dismissed because it was entirely without merit, set against the lengthy history of unmeritorious applications which I traversed in my previous Decision.

3.In a postscript to my previous Decision, I identified (1) that it would be appropriate for the Applicant finally to realise that as a result of the history he cannot ever establish a period of ordinary residence capable of giving him the ROA, or to be able to establish that he is a HKPR, and (2) that if he were to seek to continue his series of meritless applications to this Court, he could anticipate that he will face the realistic possibility of a Restrictive Proceedings Order being made against him.

4.Now, by summons dated 2 October 2026, the Applicant has applied for an extension of time regarding his “application for leave to apply judicial review under HCAL 1328/2026”, presumably meaning that he seeks an extension of time for an appeal against my Decision.

5.Having considered the materials, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to deal with the application on paper.

B.  No Merit

6.Because my previous Decision was given on 13 August 2026, the time within which the Applicant might have might have appealed against it expired 14 days later, namely on 27 August 2026.

7.Neither the Applicant’s summons nor his supporting affirmation (which merely exhibits documents evidencing my previous Decision) identify either (1) any explanation for the delay or (2) any identification of potential grounds of appeal against my previous Decision.

8.There is, therefore, no proper basis upon which the Court would exercise its discretion to extend time.

9.In any event, my view of any underlying merits is clear from my previous Decision.

10.The application for the extension of time is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

The applicant, acting in person