Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Extension of time/delay

Legal area

Court

15 May 2026

NGUYEN THI KHUYEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2756
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL634/2022

The application was refused because it was filed inordinately late, the applicant offered no explanation or evidence amounting to very good and compelling reasons to extend time, the merits were not shown to be sufficiently strong to justify extension, and the court had validly served notice and was entitled to decide the matter on paper.
5 May 2026

SESLERT NONGYAO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2002
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL603/2024

Leave was dismissed because the applicant filed her Form 86 some 2.5 months out of time with no explanation, failed to identify any arguable legal ground, and the Board and Director’s decisions showed no error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness; adverse credibility findings were supportable on the evidence and reasonable internal relocation was available, so there was no prospect of success.
24 Apr 2026

SITI NURJAMIAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2138
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL357/2023

Leave was refused and the application dismissed because the Form 86 failed to identify clear and particularised grounds or make full and frank disclosure, the Board's factual findings (credibility and absence of real risk) disclosed no public law error for a court to interfere with, and the applicant provided no explanation for the short delay so no extension of time was warranted; the applicant subsequently withdrew the leave application.
21 Apr 2026

AMIR SALEEM HASRAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2067
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1413/2025

Extension of time was refused because the application was filed more than seven months late and the applicant failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success on the merits or any legal error in the Board's findings (credibility, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation); accordingly there was no good reason to extend time and leave was refused.
10 Apr 2026

SINGH DALEEP v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1392
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1471/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any arguable public law error in the Board's decision; the Board's adverse credibility findings and risk assessment were reasonable and the Board had conducted anxious scrutiny; extension of time was refused on the basis of lack of merits.
30 Mar 2026

SAIYAPA PREM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1860
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL446/2024

The leave application is dismissed because it was filed more than three months after the grounds arose without any explanation amounting to good reason to extend time; the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director’s or Board’s decisions; those decisions reasonably assessed low risk, available state protection and internal relocation, and there is no prospect of success, therefore time is not extended and leave refused.
27 Mar 2026

SALMAN KHALIQ v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1801
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL588/2026

The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed because the court refuses to extend time: the delay (about nine months) is significant, the explanation (lost documents) is insufficient when the applicant knew of the Deportation Order and could have sought assistance, there is potential prejudice to proper administration in late challenges to deportation, and the proposed grounds lack any reasonably arguable public law basis since the Deportation Order falls squarely within s20(1)(a) Cap 115 and prior non-refoulement and appeal proceedings do not create a legal impediment t…
25 Mar 2026

MAESAROH SRI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1760
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1145/2021

The leave application is dismissed because it was made well outside the 3-month time limit without explanation (substantial delay) and, on merits, the Board's Decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality and the applicant's claim lacked realistic prospects of success.
13 Mar 2026

NGUYEN MINH DUC v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1439
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL514/2022

Leave to apply for judicial review and extension of time were refused because the application was filed out of time without adequate explanation and the intended substantive challenge lacked merit given the Board's adverse credibility findings, the private nature of the dispute, availability of state protection and failure to satisfy the statutory/USM thresholds for protection.
13 Feb 2026

MAQSOOD MAJID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 978
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1362/2025

Extension of time to apply for leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant filed seven months late and failed to demonstrate any realistic prospect of success: the Board's findings that the claim was unsubstantiated (no intent to kill, torture threshold not met, BOR 2 and BOR 3 not engaged, persecution not established, internal relocation viable) were factual assessments within the Board's remit and disclosed no legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness warranting judicial review.