DINH THI HOAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 2415/2025

[2026] HKCFI 3312

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2415 OF 2025

____________

BETWEEN

____________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

Background

1.  By way of summons filed on 13 April 2026 (“the Summons”), the applicant applies for an extension of time to appeal against my order made on 28 January 2026, which dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 11 August 2025.

2.  Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A, stipulates that “Where an application for leave is refused by a judge …, the applicant may appeal against the judge’s order to the Court of Appeal within 14 days after such order”.

3.  In Re Li Jing [2015] 2 HKLRD 933, it was held that the time for lodging an appeal against the refusal of granting leave to apply for judicial review started to run from the date of the making of the order, not from the date when the sealed order was issued, nor from the date when the sealed order was mailed, and no account should be taken of the fact that the applicant received the sealed order late (see also Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226).

4.  As my order was made on 28 January 2026, the last day for the applicant to lodge an appeal was on 11 February 2026. The time for appealing against my order has therefore expired, and the applicant requires leave from this court to appeal out of time.

The applicable law

5.  In considering whether to extend time for appealing a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the court will take into account: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted (see Jagg Singh v Torture Claims Appeal Board and another [2020] HKCA 844).

6.  However, the crucial consideration in such an application is whether the applicant can show that there is a reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review (see Re Gurung Min Bahadur, supra), and the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued (see Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702).

Discussion

7.  In the Summons and her supporting affirmation dated 13 April 2026, the applicant did not give any reason for her delay in lodging the appeal, nor any ground for the intended appeal. The applicant only mentioned that she did not speak English or Chinese and so she had to seek help from her friends to help her to submit her appeal to the High Court.

8.  At the hearing of the Summons on 28 May 2026, the applicant said that on top of the fact that she could not speak the local language, she did not receive any mail at her correspondence address. Thus, she did not receive this court’s decision. When I asked the applicant why she wanted to appeal when she did not receive the decision, she replied that she was advised by a friend and other Vietnamese that if she wanted to stay here, she should lodge this application.

9.  When I asked the applicant for the grounds of her intended appeal, she merely said that she still had the outstanding loan in Vietnam and she could not repay it. Hence, she could not return to Vietnam and wanted to stay here.

10.  The explanations given by the applicant for her delay are not satisfactory. First of all, she did not mention that she did not receive this court’s decision in her supporting affirmation. If it was true, there was no reason at all that she would have omitted to mention it in her affirmation. Also, if she did not receive the decision at all, there was no reason why she would want to appeal when the result of her leave application was not yet known. Thus, I do not accept that the applicant did not receive the decision as alleged.

11.  As to her language problem, if she could ask her friend to help her to submit the present application, she could have asked her friend to help her to lodge the appeal before the deadline expired. Thus, her language problem is not a reasonable excuse.

12.  The applicant also failed to give any valid ground for her intended appeal. What she said about her outstanding loan problem is not a ground to challenge my decision at all.

13.  For this application to be successful, the applicant must demonstrate that this court had made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before this court or was otherwise plainly wrong (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524).

14.  The applicant failed to demonstrate any of the above. Hence, there is simply no valid ground for the intended appeal or the intended judicial review.

15.  In the circumstances, there is no proper excuse for the applicant’s delay in lodging the appeal and there is no reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review. I am not prepared to grant any extension of time for the applicant to pursue such a hopeless appeal.

Conclusion

16.  For reasons aforesaid, the Summons is dismissed.