TRAN VAN LONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 599/2025

[2026] HKCFI 36

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 599 OF 2025

_____________

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.  On 19 June 2025 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in rejecting/dismissing his non-refoulement claim upon finding that none of the grounds put forward by him reasonably arguable for his intended challenge, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the process before the Director of Immigration (“Director”) or the Board or in their decisions, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success in his intended application.

2.  The Applicant by a summons issued on 31 July 2025 sought leave to appeal against that decision out of time, as the 14-day period after the decision within which to file his appeal under Order 53 Rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A expired on 3 July 2025, and hence he was more than 3 weeks late with his intended appeal.

3.  In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the Court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason 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 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 Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346.

4.  In the Applicant’s case, a delay of more than 3 weeks must be considered as substantial and inordinate, for which he just asserted in his supporting affirmation that he received the decision late but without any further or relevant details or evidence as to when exactly did he receive the decision, and as the court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 19 June 2025 to his last reported address without being returned through undelivered post, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has provided any good or valid reason for his such substantial delay.

5.  More importantly, the Applicant also failed to put forth any proper or valid draft or proposed grounds of appeal, or any particulars of any error in the decision or why it may reasonably be argued that the decision was unfair or unreasonable either in his summons or in his affirmation in which he just repeated his claim as before of fear of being harmed by his creditor over his unpaid debts. As such, and in the absence of any error in the decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not see any prospect of success in his intended appeal.

6.  In the premises, and for the reasons given, it would be futile to extend time for what appears to be a hopeless appeal, and as it has recently been confirmed by the Immigration Department that the Applicant has since been repatriated back to his home country, I accordingly dismiss his summons.