Muhammad Hafeez v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 31/2022

[2026] HKCFI 5845

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 31 OF 2022

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

Introduction

1.The Applicant is a national of Pakistan. On 9 March 2011, the Director of Immigration refused the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.  The Applicant’s subsequent appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office was dismissed on 30 August 2018 (the “Board”, the “Board’s Decision”).

2.By a Form 86 filed on 10 January 2022, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the Board’s Decision (the “Leave Application”). By my decision dated 10 February 2026, I dismissed the Leave Application which was in any event brought out of time (the “Court’s Decision”).  

3.By a Summons filed on 23 February 2026, the Applicant seeks extension of time to appeal against the Court’s Decision (the “EOT Summons”).  The EOT Summons is supported by his Affirmation filed on 23 February 2026 (the “Affirmation”).  In the EOT Summons, the Applicant asked the Court to consider the Court’s Decision and said that he is still suffering in Hong Kong.  In the Affirmation, the Applicant said that he has suffered and got attacked by people in Pakistan, and that he was unable to escape to other cities in Pakistan. In fact, the 14-day period for him to file his appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) RHC (Cap 4A) was to end only on 24 February 2026.  Hence, at the time when the EOT Summons was taken out, the Applicant was not out of time for his intended appeal. Yet, the EOT Summons was accepted by the Registry and this was only recently brought to the Court’s attention, when the time for the Applicant to lodge his appeal has expired.

4.The EOT Summons was heard on 17 June 2026. The Applicant attended the hearing and supplemented that he was undergoing medical treatment at a hospital, and that he intended to return to his home country once his treatment was completed.  The Applicant asked the Court allow him some time to complete his medical treatment and prepare his travel documents for return to his home country.

Discussion

5.In considering whether to extend the time to appeal, it is trite that the court will take into account: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason(s) for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the degree of prejudice to the other party if an extension of time is granted. The prospect of success of an intended appeal is important. The court will not grant an extension of time to appeal for a hopeless appeal to be pursued. (see Re Mushtaq Imran Ali [2025] HKCA 705, at §§16-17).

6.As mentioned above, given the fact that the Applicant was unrepresented when he filed the EOT Summons and that the Registry could have informed him that he was then not out of time to lodge his appeal, I will exercise my discretion to extend a further 14 days for the Applicant to file his notice of appeal against the Court’s Decision.

The applicant appeared in person.