IWEGBUNA GODWIN ONOCHIE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 3724/2019

[2025] HKCFI 3750

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 3724 OF 2019

________________________

________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

Introduction

1.  The Applicant is a citizen of Nigeria. His non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration on 20 October 2017 (the “Director’s Decision”).

2.  The Applicant then challenged the Director’s Decision before the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”). By the decision dated 19 March 2019 (the “Board’s Decision”), the Board dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

3.  By Form 86 filed on 13 December 2019, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the Board’s Decision (the “Leave Application”). The Leave Application was filed out of time. There had been delay of nearly 6 months and there was no explanation for such substantial delay. A hearing for the Leave Application was held on 7 March 2025 at the request of the Applicant but the Applicant did not turn up. By the decision dated 1 April 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 1153) (the “Court Decision”), the court dismissed the application on the grounds that (1) the Leave Application was filed substantively out of time and without any valid explanation for the delay; and (2) the challenge to the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable.

4.  By the Summons filed on 19 May 2025, the Applicant applied for extension of time to appeal against the Court Decision, as the 14-day period for him to file his appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court had expired (the “Application”).

5.  The Application was heard on 11 July 2025 (the “Hearing”). The Applicant attended the Hearing in person. The Applicant said there is still problem in his country and he cannot go back. He further submitted a police report and claimed that a house was burnt down by the person he had problem with.

Discussion

6.  In considering whether to extend the time to appeal, it is trite that the court will take into account: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason(s) for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the degree of prejudice to the other party if an extension of time is granted. The prospect of success of an intended appeal is important. The court will not grant an extension of time to appeal for a hopeless appeal to be pursued. (see Re Mushtaq Imran Ali [2025] HKCA 705, at §§16-17)

7.  In the present case, there was delay of about a month. In the supporting Affidavit, the Applicant claimed that the delay was due to the fact that he was not aware of the deadline to appeal, and he did not understand the court procedure. I note that the Applicant also filed the Leave Application substantially out of time with no explanation. In the absence of any evidence on what the Applicant had done upon receiving the Court Decision, I do not accept the explanation (by way of bare assertion) provided by the Applicant. However, I shall still proceed to consider the merit of the intended appeal in order to determine whether I shall grant the extension of time sought.

8.  In the Summons and in the supporting Affidavit, no grounds of appeal have been provided. The Applicant had also failed to state the grounds of the intended appeal at the Hearing.

9.  I have considered the police report submitted by the Applicant at the Hearing. I do not consider that the report assists the Applicant’s intended appeal. First, the report related to an alleged fire incident of a house on 22 April 2024. The person who reported the incident was one Chukwunonso Iwegbuna. There is no evidence on who this person is and his/her relationship with the Applicant. Second, whilst there was an allegation that the fire was related to some monetary issues between the mob and the victim, that was only a bare assertion with no evidence in support. I also have no idea on the identity of the alleged mob or the alleged victim. In short, I fail to see how such document can assist the Applicant in his intended appeal against the Court Decision.

10.  Apart from the police report, the Applicant also submitted some printouts relating to Nigeria, including an article entitled “Nigeria’s Rising Insecurity: Implications for the Nigerian Economy”. I fail to see how those articles assist the Applicant’s intended appeal. Neither has the Applicant explained so to the court.

11.  I have considered the Court Decision together with the Board’s Decision in detail. I note that the Applicant had failed to provide any grounds in support of the Leave Application as well. I further note that the Applicant had refused to answer questions from the Board regarding his claims, notwithstanding the Board’s advice that if he did not do so, the Board would proceed to a decision based on the written materials before him. In the end, the Board made the finding that the Applicant has not established his claim, which it was fully entitled to given the Applicant’s refusal to answer questions from the Board. I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Court Decision. Neither has the Applicant made any such allegations. Accordingly, I fail to see any prospect of success in the intended appeal.

Conclusion

12.  As there is no prospect of success in the appeal, I refuse to extend the time for the appeal, and the Application is hereby dismissed.