BUHION AIZA CANOY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 505/2020

[2026] HKCFI 166

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 505 OF 2020

________________________

________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

1.  By a summons issued on 17 December 2025 (“Summons”) supported by an affidavit of the same date (“Affidavit”) the Applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal my order dated 8 August 2025 (“Order”) wherein I had refused her application for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“TCAB”)/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“NRCPO”) dated 9 January 2020 (“TCAB Decision”).

2.  In the Summons, the Applicant merely said she did not agree with my judgment, and that it was unreasonable and she wants to appeal. The Affidavit merely acknowledges that she is late to appeal (without explaining why), and requests an extension of time (without explaining why one should be granted).

3.  In considering whether to extend for appealing against the refusal of leave, I have had regard to the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the prospects of the intended appeal, and the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time is granted (see Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346; Nupur Mst [2018] HKCA 524; Nguyen Van Quyen [2025] HKCA 510). The prospect of success is important as the court will not grant an extension of time to pursue a hopeless appeal (Tran Van Anh [2025] HKCA 408).

4.  Turning, firstly, to the length of and reasons for the delay, the 14-day period for her to appeal against the Order expired on 15 September 2025 (RHC O. 53 r. 3(4) [1]). The delay of over 3 months in this case is clearly substantial. Yet the Applicant has made no attempt to explain it in her documents. There is hence no good or valid reason for the delay.

5.  As to the prospects of success, in the decision I had reviewed the TCAB Decision with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, applying the enhanced Wednesbury standard, and saw no reasonably arguable public law grounds to vitiate the TCAB Decision. The Applicant has not identified how and why she says that my decision in relation to such is “unreasonable”. I do not see that such claim constitutes a proper ground of appeal with any prospect of success, particularly when she has not identified any basis (in the nature of an error of law, any failure to take account of relevant matters already placed before the court, or that I was plainly wrong) on which the Court of Appeal would reverse my decision (Nupur Mst, supra).

6.  Finally, an extension of time for the Applicant to advance a hopeless appeal would substantially and needlessly prejudice the respondent.

7.  Given all of the above, I therefore refuse the application for leave to appeal out of time, and dismiss the Summons.