KUNCORO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 3784/2019

[2025] HKCFI 3709

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 3784 OF 2019

________________________

________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

Introduction

1.  The Applicant is an Indonesian. He arrived in Hong Kong on 22 September 2017, and has overstayed in Hong Kong since 23 October 2017. He surrendered to the Immigration Department on 30 October 2017.

2.  The Applicant first filed the non-refoulement claim on 17 July 2018. By the decision dated 25 October 2018 (the “Director’s Decision”), the Director of Immigration rejected his claim.

3.  The Applicant then challenged the Director’s Decision before the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”). By the decision dated 6 December 2019 (the “Board’s Decision”), the Board dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.

4.  By Form 86 filed on 19 December 2019, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the Board’s Decision (the “Leave Application”). A hearing was held on 14 March 2025 and the Applicant attended in person. By the decision dated 22 April 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 1586) (the “Court Decision”), the court dismissed the application on the ground that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success.

5.  By the Summons filed on 26 May 2025, the Applicant applied for extension of time to appeal against the Court Decision, as the 14-day period for him to file his appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court had expired (the “Application”).

6.  The Application was heard before me on 11 July 2025 (the “Hearing”). Notice of the hearing was issued to the Applicant at the address provided by the Applicant on the Summons in advance. Attempts were also made to remind the Applicant of the hearing on 10 July 2025 by phone but in vain. The Applicant did not attend the Hearing. In the premises, I proceed to consider the Application in the absence of the Applicant.

Discussion

7.  In considering whether to extend the time to appeal, it is trite that the court will take into account: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason(s) for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the degree of prejudice to the other party if an extension of time is granted. 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. (see Re Mushtaq Imran Ali [2025] HKCA 705, at §§16-17)

8.  In the present case, there was delay of about 3 weeks. There is no explanation for the delay. Nevertheless, I shall proceed to consider whether there is merit in the intended appeal.

9.  In the Summons and in the supporting Affirmation, no grounds of appeal have been provided.

10.  I have considered the Court Decision together with the Board’s Decision in detail. I note that the Applicant had also failed to provide any grounds in support of the Leave Application. I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Court Decision. Neither has the Applicant made any such allegations. Accordingly, I fail to see any prospect of success in the intended appeal.

Conclusion

11.  As there is no prospect of success in the appeal, I refuse to extend the time for the appeal, and the Application is hereby dismissed.