|
HCAL 2533/2024
[2025] HKCFI 3829
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
NO. 2533 OF 2024
_____________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Nguyen Xuan Huu |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board /
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Putative
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
Director of Immigration |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
_____________
| Before: |
Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers |
| Date of Decision: |
16 September 2025 |
______________
D E C I S I O N
______________
The application
1. The applicant is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission and he lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director rejected his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). He was late in filing the notice of appeal with the Board. The deadline for the applicant to file the notice of appeal was 29 October 2021, but he filed the notice of appeal on 12 July 2024.
2. Having considered his explanation, which the Board rejected, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), refused to extend time for him to file the notice of appeal, in effect, dismissed his appeal.
3. The applicant filed Form No. 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
4. By Judgment dated 1 April 2025 (“the Judgment”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that there is no realistic prospect of success in his intended application.
5. The Judgment was sent to the applicant on 1 April 2025 at his last known address without being returned from the Post Office. He is deemed to receive the Judgment[1].
6. The time for filing the notice of appeal expired on 15 April 2025[2].
7. By summons filed on 12 June 2025, the applicant applied for extension of time to file the notice of appeal against the Court’s decision. He is late for more than 7 weeks.
8. In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant said that the Judgment was unfair because he was not given the chance to clarify the situation in his country.
Discussion
9. Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A and Order 53, rule 3(3) of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reason, I decide to determine this application on paper without an oral hearing[3].
10. The Court will consider the factors as set out in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam [2016] 2 HKC 393 at para. 27(3) in considering if extension of time should be extended: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted. I shall consider the merits of his case.
11. In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, the Court of Appeal held:
“ 19. The prospect of success of the intended appeal is important: the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued, see Re Rahman Wasif [2019] HKCA 299 at [13]; Re Kpamou Gbotoi Bernard [2019] HKCA 168; and Re Irshad Muhammad [2018] HKCA 864 at [16].”
12. The applicant claimed that if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by the creditor because he was unable to repay the loan he had borrowed.
13. The Director rejected his claim because it was not substantiated. He appealed to the Board. However, he was late in filing the notice of appeal with the Board. The Board had taken into consideration that he was being detained during the relevant period. The Board was not satisfied that he had provided evidence to show that he had exercised due diligence to file the notice of appeal, but was unable to do so due to circumstances beyond his control. Therefore, the Board refused to exercise its discretion to allow him to file his notice of appeal out of time.
14. He filed Form 86 for leave for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
15. This Court agreed with the Board’s decision and refused to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
16. The applicant has not given any reasons for his delay in filing the notice of appeal for appeal to the Court of Appeal.
17. As to the reason under paragraph 8, the applicant did not request a hearing for his application for leave for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Under Order 53, rule 3(3) of the RHC, the Court may determine the ex parte application without a hearing.
18. The applicant has not raised any valid reason to challenge the Board’s Decision or the Judgment.
19. In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for his appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.
| |
(K.W. Lung)
Deputy High Court Judge
|
The applicant was unrepresented.
[1] Re: Ravinder Singh [2023] HKCA 604, Hon Poon CJHC and Cheung JA, 28 April 2023
“17. The applicant had not filed any notice of change of address for service to notify of any changes in his address. According to the Court’s record, the Court’s decision was sent to the applicant’s last known address on 31 March 2022 by ordinary post. He was deemed to receive the same on the next following day, not being a specified day such as a Saturday or a general holiday. He was therefore deemed to have received the Court’s decision on 1 April 2022. ”
[2] The public holidays are included in the 14-day period as per Order 2(5) of the Rules of the High Court
2. Reckoning periods of time (O. 3, r. 2)
(5) Where, apart from this paragraph, the period in question, being a period of 7 days or less, would include a specified day, that day shall be excluded.
(35 of 1998 s. 5; 18 of 2016 s. 5)
[3] Ogbozor Tochukwu Eugene v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Director of Immigration [2022] HKCA 607, Hon Kwan VP and G Lam JA, 6 May 2022:
“16. … … In respect of his complaint of no oral hearing, the judge is entitled to decide the matter on paper pursuant to the Order 32, rules 11 and 11A and Order 53 rule 3(3) of the Rules of the High Court.”
|