ULLAH SAMI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

ULLAH SAMI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Short delay alone does not justify extension; because the applicant advanced no arguable grounds and the Board and Court decisions showed no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality and there were no realistic prospects of success, the court refused to extend time for appeal.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 490
Parties
Applicant: Ullah Sami; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 January 2026
Case Number
HCAL2282/2020
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time to Appeal From Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review in Non Refoulement Proceedings / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed; extension of time to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Judicial Review, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness, Prospects of Success
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Law Extension of Time Judicial Review Leave to Apply for Judicial Review +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ullah Sami

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Extension of Time to Appeal From Refusal of Leave to Apply for Judicial Review in Non Refoulement Proceedings / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time to appeal Order 53 rule 3(4) deadline
  2. 2 Whether the intended appeal has realistic prospects of success
  3. 3 Whether any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality exists in the Board or Court decisions

Ratio Decidendi

Short delay alone does not justify extension; because the applicant advanced no arguable grounds and the Board and Court decisions showed no legal error, procedural unfairness or irrationality and there were no realistic prospects of success, the court refused to extend time for appeal.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; extension of time to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Application for extension of time to appeal dismissed
  • Extension of time refused