Zahir Khan v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1346/2021

[2026] HKCFI 5846

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1346 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 19 January 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 2 February 2026[1]. However, the Application was made by summons dated 9 February 2026. Hence, there is a delay of 7 days.

Analysis

3.In considering whether a time extension to appeal should be granted, it is well established that the court shall have regard to (i) 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 arguability of the intended appeal is 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.Although the period of delay is short, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has given a good explanation for the delay:-

(1)  In the Applicant’s affirmation dated 9 February 2026 (the “9/2/26 Affirmation”) made in support of the Application, he claimed that he received Decision from the court late. However, he did not explain the circumstances in which he received the Decision, including when he in fact received the Decision.

(2)  At the hearing held on 20 July 2026, he claimed that he did not receive the Decision from the court by post but he only found out about the Decision when he came to the court registry.

(3)  Based on the court’s records, the Applicant signed and submitted an Address Confirmation Form to confirm his current address at the time (the “Previous Address”) on 22 December 2025, the date of the hearing of the Applicant’s leave application which resulted in the Decision. The Decision was sent to the Previous Address on 19 January 2026.

(4)  I also note that the Applicant’s address as stated in the 9/2/26 Affirmation is different from the Previous Address. It was only until the hearing of this Application on 20 July 2026 that the Applicant signed and submitted another Address Confirmation Form to confirm his latest address as stated in the 9/2/26 Affirmation. Insofar as the Applicant was unable to receive the Decision on time because of the Applicant’s own failure to provide up-to-date contact details with the court, the consequences of such failure must also lie with him, see: Re Ahmad Zeeshan [2026] HKCA 1195 at §14.

6.In my view, the most important factor is the merits of the proposed appeal. 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. When I asked the Applicant at the hearing held on 20 July 2026 whether he had anything to add to the substance of his appeal. He said there was none.

7.The Application is accordingly dismissed.

The applicant appeared in person.