NGUYEN THI THANH HUYEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 1419/2024

[2026] HKCFI 3265

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1419 OF 2024

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 6 August 2025 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in dismissing her appeal regarding her non-refoulement claim upon finding that none of the grounds put forward by her reasonably arguable for her intended challenge, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the process before the Director of Immigration (“Director”) or the Board or in their decisions, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success in her intended application.

2.  The Applicant now by a summons issued on 15 August 2025 seeks leave to appeal against that decision out of time, even though the 14-day period for her to file her appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap. 4A was to end only on 20 August 2025, and hence she was then clearly not out of time with her intended appeal, but somehow her summons was accepted by the Registry and which was only recently brought to the Court’s attention, and of course by now the Applicant is out of time to 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, even though she was then not out of time with her appeal, and in her supporting affirmation she just referred to matters clearly not relevant, such as she thought at one time her claimed problem in her home country was over and hence back in April 2025 prior to the Court’s decision she requested to withdraw her leave application, as referred to in the Court’s decision but clearly had no relevancy to her present application for extension of time to appeal when as noted above that she was at the time of the issue of her summons clearly not out of time with her intended appeal.

5.  In the premises, and given the fact that the Applicant was then unrepresented and was clearly not sure of what she was doing, and that the Registry could have informed her that she was then not out of time to appeal, I am prepared to exercise my discretion to extend a further 14 days for the Applicant to file her notice of appeal against the Court’s decision.