|
CAMP 60/2025, [2026] HKCA 756
On Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 669
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 60 OF 2025
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 718 OF 2019)
__________________
__________________
| Before: |
Hon Cheung and Barma JJA in Court |
| Date of Judgment: |
29 April 2026 |
__________________
JUDGMENT
__________________
Hon Cheung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :
1. This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung dated 19 December 2024 ([2024] HKCFI 3282) (‘the EOT Decision’), refusing to grant extension of time to the applicant to appeal against the Judge’s earlier decision dated 21 March 2023 ([2023] HKCFI 669) (‘the Leave Decision’).
2. By the Leave Decision, the Judge dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review (‘the Leave Application’) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (‘the Board’) dated 13 February 2019 (‘the Board’s Decision’), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) dated 17 April 2018, refusing his non-refoulement claim.
3. The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [4]-[6], [9]-[14] of the Leave Decision[1]. The Judge stated the applicant did not raise any specific grounds in support of the Leave Application and gave his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [15]-[23] of the Leave Decision. The Judge has also set out in detail his reasons for refusing the extension of time to appeal application taken out by the applicant: see [3]-[16] of the EOT Decision. We will not repeat those details herein.
4. By the summons filed on 21 March 2025, the applicant sought to appeal against the EOT Decision but did not provide any ground of the intended appeal. On the same day, the applicant also filed a supporting affirmation, and it was annexed with a 10-page written document which can be summarized as follows :
1) The applicant fears safety of his life in India[2];
2) The applicant was deprived of his right to be informed of his legal right to information, such as for example there was no legal and language assistance[3];
3) There was no oral hearing at high court and court of appeal[4];
4) The Board’s Decision has never been read back or translated back to the applicant[5];
5) The Board has made a number of critical errors[6];
6) No evaluation of risk specific to the applicant[7];
7) The applicant faces significant economic difficulties or subject to extra-judicial killing[8];
8) The Adjudicator simply focus on the applicant inability to remember specific dates[9]; and
9) The Adjudicator did not consider inconsistencies were due to language interpretation errors[10].
5. Having considered the documents, we are of the view that it is appropriate to determine this application on paper without a hearing pursuant to Order 59, rule 14A of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A) (‘the RHC’).
I. Discussion
6. Following the approach this Court has adopted in Tang Chai On v Tang Sing Ki [2016] 5 HKLRD 104 at [3]-[8], we will treat the present application as a renewed application for extension of time to appeal against the Leave Decision.
7. Under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the RHC, the applicant may appeal against the Leave Decision to the Court of Appeal within 14 days of the order. In deciding whether to extend time to appeal, the Court will take into account the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and the degree of prejudice to the other party if an extension of time is granted.
8. 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: Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, at [19].
9. The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]. In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant. If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed. The Court of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst at [14(6)]).
10. As noted by the Judge at [6] of the EOT Decision, the applicant was only one day late.
11. More importantly, his intended appeal has no substance. At the outset, his assertions are all general, vague and bare which are not proper grounds of appeal. In the absence of demonstrating any error in the Leave Decision, the applicant’s assertions are plainly not valid grounds of appeal. We see no basis to disturb the Leave Decision.
12. Accordingly, there is no prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal. It is thus futile to grant the applicant any extension of time to appeal against the Leave Decision.
13. The reapplication for extension of time to appeal is refused, and the applicant’s summons taken out on 21 March 2025 is dismissed.
| (Peter Cheung) |
(Aarif Barma) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
Applicant, acting in person
[1] See also Board’s Decision at [118]-[137], [138]-[146];
[2] Written document page 1 at [4];
[3] Written document pages 2-3 at [8];
[4] Written document page 3 at [9], page 4 at [13]; Form CALL-1 at [2] the applicant did not request oral hearing;
[5] Written document page 3 at [10];
[6] Written document page 5 at [14];
[7] Written document page 8 at [20];
[8] Written document page 9 at [23];
[9] Written document page 9 at [25];
[10] Written document page 10 at [28];
|