TRAN VAN QUYEN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

HCAL 379/2022

[2026] HKCFI 4014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 379 OF 2022

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.  On 26 November 2025 I refused to extend time to the seriously late application of the Applicant for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) in refusing to allow him to make a subsequent claim after his previous claim had been finally determined upon finding no good reason for his serious delay of 7 months with his leave application, 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 his process before the Director or in his decision, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success in his intended application.

2.  The Applicant now by a summons issued on 30 March 2026 seeks leave to appeal against that decision out of time, as the 14-day period for him to file his appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A ended on 10 December 2025, and hence he was more than 3 months 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 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 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 months must be considered as substantial and inordinate, for which he failed to provide any explanation in his summons or affirmation, and as the record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 26 November 2025 to his then reported address without being returned through undelivered post, I am unable to see any good reason or justification for his such serious delay.

5.  More importantly, nor did he put forward any proper or valid draft or proposed grounds of appeal, or any particulars of any error in the decision or why it may be reasonably arguable that the decision was unfair or unreasonable either in his summons or his affirmation in which he just repeated his claim as before and some bare assertions that the Immigration Department and the Court have overestimated his ability to relocate to and survive in other areas of his home country. 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 either.

6.  In the premises, and for the reasons given, it would be futile to extend time for what appears to be a hopeless appeal. Accordingly, I refuse his application for leave to appeal out of time, and dismiss his summons.