RE NGO THI CAN

CAMP 142/2025, [2026] HKCA 267

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 165

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 142 OF 2025

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2026 OF 2023)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”)  dated 3 June 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 2130)  (“the EOT Decision”), refusing to grant extension of time to the applicant to appeal against the Judge’s earlier decision dated 9 January 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 165)  (“the Leave Decision”).

2.  By the Leave Decision, the Judge dismissed her application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”)  against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”)  dated 1 November 2023 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 12 May 2021, refusing her non-refoulement claim.

3.  The applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting her appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [1] - [9] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge has also set out in detail the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the Leave Application and his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [10] - [15] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge has further set out in detail his reasons for refusing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal: see [1] - [7] of the EOT Decision.  We will not repeat those details herein.

4.  In the Summons filed on 31 July 2025, the applicant did not advance any intended ground of appeal.  By the supporting affirmation filed on 31 July 2025, the applicant merely asserted that:

“1. The Decision made by the High Court has been reached unfairly without allowing me an opportunity to clarify my case and situation in my country.

2. I believe that merits of this ground of appeal constitute sufficient reason justification for the Court to exercise its discretion in allowing this appeal out of time.” (sic)

5.  The applicant further lodged a written statement on 31 July 2025.  In that statement, she mainly reiterated her fear of being killed and harmed upon refoulement, and that she considered internal relocation unfeasible as she would face difficulties and obstacles.  She also alleged that the Immigration Department failed to consider her human rights under various legislations, but failed to condescend upon particulars.

6.  Having considered the documents, we are of the view that it is appropriate to determine this application on paper without a hearing pursuant to Order 59, rule 14A of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A (“the RHC”).

DISCUSSION

7.  Following the approach this court has adopted in Tang Chai On v Tang Sing Ki [2016] 5 HKLRD 104 at [3] - [8], we will treat the present application as a renewed application for extension of time to appeal against the Leave Decision.

8.  Under Order 53, rule 3(4)  of the RHC, the applicant may appeal against the Leave Decision to the Court of Appeal within 14 days of the order. In deciding whether to extend time to appeal, the court will take into account the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and the degree of prejudice to the other party if an extension of time is granted.

9.  The prospect of success of an intended appeal is important.  The court will not grant an extension of time to appeal for a hopeless appeal to be pursued: Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, at [19].

10.  The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant.  If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed.  The Court of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst at [14(6)]).

11.  As noted by the Judge at [2] of the EOT Decision, the applicant first applied for extension of time to appeal before the Judge by way of a summons filed on 3 February 2025.  By then, she was late for 11 days in taking out her application.  She failed to give any reason, let alone good reason, to justify her delay.

12.  More importantly, her intended appeal has no substance.  At the outset, her assertions are all general, vague and bare which are not proper grounds of appeal.  General assertions of her fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  More importantly, she failed to identify any error with specific particulars against the Leave Decision.  She also had ample opportunities to present her case before the Judge.  In fact, an oral hearing was held before the Judge on 12 December 2024 for her application for leave to apply for judicial review and an oral hearing was also held on 15 May 2025 for her application for extension of time.  However, the applicant was absent for both hearings.[1]  The Judge thus considered all her written representations in detail in both the Leave Decision and the EOT Decision.  There is no unfairness and her complaints clearly have no substance.  Accordingly, her assertions are not valid grounds of appeal.

13.  For the above reasons, there is no prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal.  It is thus futile to grant the applicant any extension of time to appeal against the Leave Decision.

14.  The reapplication for extension of time to appeal is refused, and the applicant’s summons taken out on 31 July 2025 is dismissed.