NGO TRI NHAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 915/2021

[2026] HKCFI 4197

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 915 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

Introduction

1.  On 27 February 2026, the court sent an order (“Order”) together with the decision (“Decision”) of this court in the prescribed “Form Call-1” ([2026] HKCFI 1033). These documents were sent to the applicant’s last known address by ordinary post.

2.  In the Decision, the court dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the Appeal Board’s decision dated 8 June 2021, dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 16 March 2021, rejecting the applicant’s non‑refoulement claim.

3.  Pursuant to Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, the time limit for an appeal to the Court of Appeal is 14 days after an order of the court.  The deadline for the applicant to file his appeal would therefore have been on 13 March 2026.  After a delay of 5 days, the applicant issued a summons (“Summons”) dated 18 March 2026 together with a supporting affirmation to apply for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Order.

4.  At the hearing of the Summons, the applicant appeared in person and made submissions.

The Law

5.  The applicable guidelines governing the discretion for allowing an extension of time to appeal against the decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review are as follows. The court shall have regard to: (i) the length of the delay.  (ii) the reason for the delay. (iii) the prospects of success of the intended appeal; and (iv) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted:  see Re MK HCMP 2609/2016, 10 January 2017; Chu On Fong Winter v The Appeal Panel (Housing) HCMP 982/2017, 20 July 2017;Islam Raja Rais v Director of Immigration HCMP 881/2017, 26 June 2017; Re Gurang Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346; and Nguyen Thi Hong Thuy [2024] HKCA 1172.

Discussion

6.  In the supporting affirmation, the applicant stated that he could not understand Chinese or English and he therefore had to seek help from his friends to help him submit his appeal to the High Court.

7.  At the hearing this morning, he repeated the same reason.  He said it took him time to find a person who could help him to bring him to the High Court to file the application.  He also said that he was not aware of the 14 days’ time limit.

8.  In considering the length of delay in this case, I accept that a delay of 5 days is not significant.  However, the applicant shall still be required to provide a reasonable explanation for the 5 days’ delay.  After having listened to his explanation given at the hearing and also considered almost the same reason given in his supporting affirmation, I do not accept that the applicant has given a reasonable explanation for the delay.  He had not demonstrated that he acted promptly as soon as he received the Order and the Decision to find help if he did need one to advise him what to do.

9.  As regarding his ignorance of the time limit, it is settled law that ignorance cannot be accepted as a good excuse.  I find it most troubling in the present case that the applicant seems not to have read the Decision even up to now. Despite the fact that he was able to find a person to help him file the Summons to the court, the applicant did not seem to be interested to ask his friend to explain the contents of the Decision to him.

10.  I am not surprised that the applicant’s lack of interest because he had confirmed and stated in very clear terms at the hearing that his main purpose and the only purpose in his intended appeal was that he wanted to stay in Hong Kong.  It is plain to me that the applicant’s intended appeal is not an authentic challenge to the Order.  His real motive is to play for time.

Conclusion

11.  For the reasons stated above, I refuse to exercise my discretion to extend the time to the applicant to serve his appeal.

12.  The Summons is therefore dismissed.