NGUYEN VAN SON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 31/2021

[2026] HKCFI 879

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 31 OF 2021

_____________

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

The application

1.  By my decision dated 18 December 2025, I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 23 December 2020 which refused the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  By a summons issued on 5 January 2026, the Applicant seeks an extension of time to appeal against my above decision. As the 14-day appeal period under O.53, r.3(4) of the RHC expired on 2 January 2026, the Applicant is out of time in his intended appeal by 1 working day.

3.  The applicable principles are trite: the court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reasons 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.  The delay in the present case was not lengthy and it was asserted by the Applicant that he received the court’s letter late (the Applicant said at the hearing that the letter was inserted into a different letterbox in his building). If the intended appeal is reasonably arguable, I would be prepared to allow an extension of time.

5.  But there is nothing in either the summons or the supporting affirmation to attempt to raise any proposed grounds of appeal or to identify any error in the decision he seeks to appeal against. I have asked the Applicant to address this question at the hearing on 28 January 2026 but the Applicant was still unable to articulate any grounds of appeal (apart from generally asserting that there were additional things that he would like to present to the Court). I fail to see any prospect of success in his intended appeal.

6.  In the premises, it would be pointless to extend time for the Applicant’s intended appeal. I therefore dismiss the application.