KHANTHOTHONG AE v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1410/2020

[2026] HKCFI 3562

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1410 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Introduction

1.  On 25 November 2025, the court sent the order (“Order”)  together with the decision (“Decision”)  of this court in the prescribed form CALL-1 ([2025] HKCFI 5570). In the Decision, the court dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”)  against the Appeal Board’s decision dated 19 June 2020, dismissing the applicant’s appeal against a decision of the Director of Immigration dated 9 April 2020 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  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 an order of the court.  The deadline for the applicant to file his appeal in this case would have been on 8 December 2025.  After a delay of around 3 months 7 days, the applicant issued a summons (“Summons”)  dated 16 March 2026 to apply for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the  Order.

3.  At the hearing of the Summons, the applicant appeared in person and made submissions.

The Law

4.  The applicable guidelines governing the discretion of an extension of time to appeal against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review are as follows. The court shall have regard to: (i)  the length of the delay;(ii)  the reason for the delay;(iii)  the prospect 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.

Discussion

5.  According to the Summons, the applicant’s explanation for the delay was that he received the court’s letter very late. At the hearing, the court therefore asked him to elaborate on his stated reason that he received the court’s decision late.  The applicant did not seem to be able to tell the court as when he actually received the Order and the Decision.

6.  In order to assist the applicant’s memory, the court showed him a copy of the Decision to see whether he could remember when he received the Decision. The applicant confirmed he had read it.  However, he could not recall when he had received the Decision and when he read it.

7.  In considering the length of delay, I believe that in the present case, a delay of more than 3 months is substantial.  Hence, a good reason shall be required.

8.  Having considered the explanation, the applicant provided in the Summons and at the hearing, I reject the applicant’s explanation in its entirety.  I found it is more likely that his stated reason that he received the Order and the Decision late was entirely fabricated.  The applicant also does not seem to have been able to provide any grounds in support of his intended appeal.

9.  At the hearing, when the court asked him whether he had any reason to support his intended appeal, all he said was that he had problems in his home country.  Similar averments were also made in his supporting affirmation about the danger he would face in his home country.  I do not believe that the applicant has a genuine intention to challenge the Order.  It is likely that when he realised that the Leave Application was not successful, he found somebody to help him prepare the Summons and the affirmation documents. However, the documents were shoddy as evidenced by the glaring error stated in the supporting affirmation, stating that the applicant’s home country was Pakistan (when it should have been Thailand). I found such error is an indication of the applicant’s lack of genuineness in the intended appeal.

Conclusion

10.  Having regard to the lengthy delay and a complete lack of any prospects of success in the present intended appeal, I therefore refuse to exercise my discretion to grant an extension of time to the applicant to serve his appeal out of time.

11.  The Summons is therefore dismissed.