EZIOKWU CHRISTIAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 463/2020

[2025] HKCFI 6429

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 463 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Introduction

1.  On 30 July 2025, the court sent the order together with the decision of this court in the prescribed form (Call-1), (“the Decision”)  [2025] HKCFI 3167 by ordinary post to the applicant’s updated address. In the Decision, the court, dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review against the Appeal Board Decision dated 10 January 2020 dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the Director’s refusal of his non-refoulement claim. 

2.  The address that the court sent to was the address which the applicant confirmed at the hearing on 24 April 2025.  Before the hearing, through the interpreter, the applicant signed to confirm his address at Room C, 4^th Floor, 161 to 159 Ki Lung Street, Sham Shui Po (“Confirmed Address”). 

3.  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 been on 13 August 2025.  After a delay of more than a month, the applicant issued a summons dated 22 September 2025 to apply for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the court’s order. 

4.  At the hearing of the summons, the applicant appeared in person and made submissions.

The Law

5.  The guidelines governing the discretion for an extension of time to appeal against the decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review therefore apply.  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.  

6.  In his affirmation in support of the summons, the applicant did not give any reason for the delay.  All he said was that he did not receive any correspondence from the court regarding the dismissal of his judicial review. 

7.   At the hearing, the applicant still repeated that he did not receive either my order or the Decision.  He said even up to now, he has not received the Decision.  When I asked him if that was the case why he wanted to appeal, he said when he went to Sha Tin Court in connection with some other cases, the duty lawyer told him that his case was already concluded and he should appeal. This was the only reason that he gave.  He now told the court that he never resided on the 4^th Floor of the Confirmed Address.  He said he has always resided on the 6^th Floor. 

Discussion

8.  In considering the length of delay, I believe that a delay of more than a month is not short.  As for the reason of the delay, I am not satisfied that the applicant has given a good explanation.  As I had just outlined above, the order together with the Decision were sent to the applicant’s Confirmed Address.  

9.  Even up to now, this court has not received any undelivered return post of the Order and the Decision.  It is plain that the service of the documents was regular.  Even if I were to believe the applicant that he in fact has resided on 6^th Floor instead of the 4^th Floor, if there is any mistake, the mistake was his own making because he signed at the hearing to confirm the Confirmed Address. Hence, I reject his explanation.  

10.  In the present case, I find it most disconcerting is the fact that the applicant has sought to appeal against the Decision without even having read it.  I believe that the intended appeal is not an authentic challenge to the Decision.  His real motive is to play for time. 

11.  As for the prospect of success, since the applicant has not even read the Decision, I do not think he has raised any valid grounds to challenge it.  Hence, I am not satisfied that there is a good prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal. 

12.  Whether to extend time to appeal is the discretion of the court.  Having anxiously 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. 

13.  The summons is therefore dismissed.