NGUYEN VAN HUNG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1380/2020

[2026] HKCFI 2295

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1380 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Introduction

1.  By an order (“Order”)  dated 13 October 2025, this court refused the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”).  The applicant intended judicial review was against the decision of the Appeal Board dated 19 June 2020 dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 26 March 2020 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds.

2.  Since the applicant had not requested for a hearing at the time when he filed the Leave Application, this court therefore determined his application on papers without a hearing.

3.  The court’s decision in the form “CALL-1”, dated 13 October 2025 (“Decision”), was sent on the same day to the address updated by the Director of Immigration on 7 August 2025.

4.  The updated address provided by the Director of Immigration was an address in Yau Tsim Mong District.  Up to now, the posting of the court’s Decision together with the Order has not been returned undelivered.

5.  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 the order of the court.  The deadline for the applicant to file his appeal would have expired on 28 October 2025.

6.  After a delay for about 51 days, the applicant issued a summons (“Summons”)  dated 18 December 2025 to apply for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the court’s order.

7.  As the applicant is currently detained in the Immigration Detention Centre (“CIC”), the applicant was brought to attend court by a body order.

8.  The applicant made submissions and gave reasons for the delay.  Before I discuss about the applicant’s explanation, I need to firstly deal with the law.

The Law

9.  The applicable guidelines governing the discretion of an extension of time to appeal against a 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

10.  In the affirmation in support of the Summons, the applicant stated that since he was a litigant in person and unrepresented, he found that this lack of legal representation should not justify the outcome of his Leave Application.

11.  He also stated that since he had not received any correspondence from the court regarding the dismissal of the Leave Application, and because he had been in the custody of the CIC, his ability to respond had been hindered.

12.  In light of what he stated in the affirmation that he had been in custody, the court spent a lot of time at the hearing in trying to understand what has actually happened.

13.  The applicant stated that he was arrested for a case of theft on 12 October 2025.  Apparently, he was probably found guilty, and was sentenced to 21 days’ imprisonment.  He was detained in Hei Ling Chau for 21 days.  After his imprisonment sentence was completed, he was transferred to CIC.

14.  He said when he was at CIC, an Immigration Department staff came to see him with a Vietnamese interpreter, telling him that his Leave Application had been dismissed.  He did not ask the interpreter to read the Decision or to interpret it to him.  All he wanted to do was, in his words, to make a second judicial review application.

15.  The immigration officer told him that it was already late, his intended appeal against the Decision was already late. Therefore, he had to find a way to make another application.

16.  He contacted his cousin in Hong Kong and asked his cousin to find a Vietnamese woman in the name of “Mai Lan” to help him prepare what he described as another application.  The cousin, on behalf of the applicant, had to pay this “Mai Lan” (who is not a lawyer), HK$6,000 to prepare the Summons. This is his explanation for the delay.

17.  In considering the length of delay, I believe that a delay of about 51 days is not a short delay.  As for the reason of delay on account of the applicant having been detained almost at the same time when the Decision was delivered to him on 13 October 2025, I accept that his account as true. However, despite the fact that he did not receive the Decision promptly due to his detention, I do not accept that constitutes a good explanation.

18.  The applicant confirmed that the Yau Tsim Mong address was the address he resided before his arrest around 12 or 13 October 2025. As stated earlier in this decision, the Decision that was sent to him at the Yau Tsim Mong address has not been returned undelivered. Hence, the service of the Decision was regular.

19.  According to the applicant, he has a cousin who was able to find him this “Mai Lan” to prepare the Summons. I am sure that his relative should have also been able to go to his residence and collect mail for him.

Conclusion

20.  In the present case, it is plain that the applicant had no interest at all in finding out the reasons for this court’s dismissal of the Leave Application. Even up till now he has not read the Decision. I believe that the intended appeal against Decision is not an authentic challenge. His real motive is to play for time.

21.  As for the prospect of success, the only ground he put forward, is his complaint of being unrepresented in his affirmation. It is well established that the fact that a person did not have legal representation would not constitute a valid ground of appeal.

22.  Plainly, since the applicant has not even read the Decision, I do not think that the applicant would be able to raise any valid grounds to challenge the Decision. Hence, I am not satisfied there is a good prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal.

23.  Whether to extend time to appeal is a discretion of the court.  Having examined the facts and evidence of this case, I am disinclined to exercise my discretion to extend the time to the applicant to serve his appeal.  The Summons is therefore dismissed.

Postscript

24.  In the course of inquiring from the applicant’s explanation for the delay, I found one very troubling matter. This concerns the Vietnamese person called “Mai Lan”, who had helped the applicant to prepare the Summons and the supporting affirmation for a charge of HK$6,000.

25.  According to the applicant, this “Mai Lan” was a fellow Vietnamese who apparently routinely charges Vietnamese non-refoulement claimants to prepare applications and related legal documents and files them at court. However, she is not a lawyer.  Under the Legal Practitioners Ordinance, an unqualified person may commit an offence if that person prepares legal instruments for a fee.

26.  The applicant said he did not have her name card. However, she could be easily searched through Facebook using this name, and her given phone number.

27.  In light of the possible breach of law by this “Mai Lan”, I will instruct my clerk to send a copy of this decision to the Department of Justice and ask the Secretary of Justice to make further investigations. The clerk will separately provide the phone number of “Mai Lan” to the Department of Justice given by the applicant.