Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Extension of time for leave

Legal area

Court

2 Dec 2025

JATINDER SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5857
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL883/2025

Leave refused because the application was filed out of time (3 days late) and, on the merits, the Director properly applied section 37ZO: there was no significant change of circumstances and the new material did not give the subsequent claim a realistic prospect of success; separation from family did not ground non-refoulement; the Director's decision was lawful, procedurally fair and not Wednesbury unreasonable.
19 Nov 2025

NGUYEN TIEN DUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5588
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL304/2021

Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the application was filed five months out of time with no good reason to extend, the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions, the risk of harm was assessed as low and localized with available state protection and reasonable internal relocation, and the applicant subsequently confirmed it was safe to return.
31 Oct 2025

ANWAR NASEER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5096
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1987/2020

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the application was filed out of time without satisfactory explanation and, on the merits, the Board's 2nd Decision contained no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality; the applicant offered no new evidence and the Board's factual findings and credibility assessments were within its remit.
16 Oct 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4621
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1045/2025

Extension of time was refused and the application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed because the application was filed more than six months late, the applicant failed to provide satisfactory reasons for the delay, raised no arguable legal grounds undermining the Board's findings, and failed to show a realistic prospect of success given the Board's credibility findings and conclusions on state protection and internal relocation.
28 Apr 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1716
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2470/2024

The court refused extension of time and leave because the applicant offered no reasonable or credible explanation for the substantial delay, deliberately failed to keep the Board and court informed of her contact address such that service was affected, and her conduct and delay constituted an abuse of process making it inappropriate to grant leave regardless of asserted merits.
14 May 2024

AZIZAH YUMNA FARIHA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1325
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL284/2024

Extension of time and leave were refused because the short unexplained delay did not outweigh the absence of any realistic prospect of success: the Board's factual findings and assessment of state protection and internal relocation were lawful, procedurally fair and not irrational (satisfied enhanced Wednesbury), so judicial review would have no realistic prospect of success.
16 Feb 2024

MOHAMMAD ZAHID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 425
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL692/2020

The applicant's leave application was refused because he filed 2 years and 10 months late without any explanation or good reason, his intended challenge disclosed no reasonably arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions, and both decision‑makers had correctly applied legal principles including availability of state protection and internal relocation; accordingly time was not extended and leave was dismissed.
4 Aug 2023

PARAMJIT SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2022
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1076/2020

Refusal to extend time and dismissal of the leave application was justified because the applicant was over 13 months late with no satisfactory explanation, the intended challenge disclosed no arguable grounds of legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision, and the applicant later confirmed it was safe to return; accordingly there was no prospect of success and no good reason to extend time.
11 Apr 2023

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

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 776
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1368/2022

Extension of time was refused because the applicant incurred a serious unexplained delay of about five months and the proposed judicial review had no realistic prospect of success; the Director's decision to refuse the subsequent claim was not shown to be legally flawed, procedurally unfair or Wednesbury unreasonable, so leave was denied and the application dismissed.
10 Mar 2023

NONG THI THANH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 466
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1197/2022

Extension of time refused and leave dismissed because the applicant was inordinate and substantially out of time (2 years 10 months) with no explanation, the intended challenge lacked identified legal errors or arguable merit, and the Director and Board lawfully and rationally concluded the risk was low with state protection and reasonable internal relocation available.