Mia Md Hanif v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 508/2021

[2026] HKCFI 4572

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 508 OF 2021

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________________

D E C I S I O N

_____________________

Introduction

1.This is an application for extension of time to appeal (the “Application”) against my decision dated 11 February 2026 (the “Decision”) where I refused leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review in respect of the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.The deadline for appealing the Decision fell on 25 February 2026[1]. However, the Application was made by summons dated 27 February 2026 which was only 2 days late.

Analysis

3.In considering whether a time extension to appeal should be granted, it is well established that the court shall have regard to (a) 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 extension of time were granted, see Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226 and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346.

4.Even in the case where the delay is a short one (such as the present case), the merits of the intended appeal remain an important consideration, 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; Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226. 

5.As the period of delay is short, I am prepared to accept the Applicant’s explanation as stated in the summons and his supporting affirmation for the Application that he only received the Decision on 26 February 2026 and that he had acted expeditiously by making the Application on the next day.

6.Nevertheless, the most important factor is the merits of the proposed appeal. No meaningful purpose can be served by allowing the Application if the proposed appeal is bound to fail.

7.In the present case, I am not satisfied that the appeal has any prospect of success. The Applicant has failed to produce any proposed grounds of appeal or identify any palpable errors in the Decision. The Applicant was also unable to articulate any ground of appeal at the hearing of the Application held on 29 July 2026.  

8.The Application is accordingly dismissed.

The applicant appeared in person.