RE HOANG TRONG GIANG

HCAL 1648/2021

[2022] HKCFI 2346

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1648 OF 2021

____________

____________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

Introduction

1.  This is the Applicant’s application by summons filed on 11 May 2022 (the “Summons”) for extension of time to appeal the order of this Court dated 16 February 2022 (the “Order”) refusing to grant his leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/ the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 1 November 2021 (the “leave application”).

2.  By 11 May 2022 when the Summons was filed, 84 days had lapsed since the date of the Order. This application is 70 days out of time, which is very substantial in the context of a fourteen-day appeal period. His explanation for the delay is that he had contracted Covid-19 virus and was granted 7 days’ sick leave including two days of hospitalization. Then he engaged himself in self-isolation because he had been in contact with many confirmed Covid-19 patients. This Court does not accept his explanation as credible. In addition, despite the Court’s direction, he failed to furnish his grounds of the intended appeal.

3.  In his leave application, he named the proposed respondent as “Immigration Department Torture Claim Appeal Board” and identified the decision in respect of which leave to apply for judicial review was sought as a decision dated 1 November 2021, which this Court understood as referring to a decision of the Board dated 1 November 2021. Upon the Board’s confirmation that no such decision had been made relating to the Applicant, this Court dismissed his leave application on the ground that the decision sought to be reviewed does not exist.

4.  It now transpires that his leave application may be referable to the Notice of Decision of the Director of Immigration refusing his request to make a subsequent claim. As this Court has not considered his application as such, he may have an arguable appeal against this Court’s Order. Thus, despite his delay and failure to furnish his grounds of the intended appeal, extension of time is granted for him to file his notice of appeal within fourteen days from the date of this decision with a recommendation that his appeal be allowed and his leave application be remitted to this Court for determination.