LE DUC CUONG v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 495/2021

[2026] HKCFI 2129

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 495 OF 2021

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

Introduction

1.  The Applicant is a national of Vietnam. On 14 April 2020, he initiated his claim for non-refoulement protection. In gist, he feared he would be seriously harmed and/or even killed by the triads as a result of a dispute and a fight with them. The claim was assessed by the Director of Immigration (the “DOI”) on all applicable grounds. By a decision dated 22 September 2020, the DOI dismissed his claim.

2.  The Applicant subsequently challenged the decision before the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “TCAB”). By a decision dated 22 February 2021 (the “TCAB Decision”), the TCAB dismissed his petition.

3.  By a Form 86 filed on 9 April 2021 (the “Form 86”), the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the TCAB Decision. By a decision dated 22 January 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 306) (the “Court Decision”), the court dismissed the application on the ground that the intended judicial review against the TCAB Decision is not reasonably arguable. Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, the Applicant had 14 days to appeal the Court Decision had he wished to do so. That period had expired.

4.  By the Summons filed on 9 February 2026, the Applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal against the Court Decision (the “Application”). The Applicant requested for a hearing and attended the same.

5.  The Application was heard before me on 4 March 2026. When asked about the reason for his delay, he said that he did not know that there was a decision made for his claim and that he only found out through the information posted on a website by his Vietnamese interpreter. When asked if he had anything to add, he said that he only wanted to remain here for a longer time as he would face danger due to being wanted in Vietnam.

Discussion

6.  Under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, where an application for leave to apply for judicial review is refused by a judge, the applicant may appeal against the judge’s order within 14 days after such order.

7.  In considering whether to grant an extension of time, the court will take into consideration of: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of success in the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if the extension of time was granted: Re Mijares Jero Oliveros [2025] HKCA 744 at [12]; Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702 at [18]; Re Rahman Wasif [2019] HKCA 299 at [13]. In particular, the prospect of success of the intended appeal is of crucial consideration: Re Kpamou Gbotoi Bernard [2019] HKCA 168 at [15]; Re Irshad Muhammad [2018] HKCA 864 at [16].

8.  There was a delay in the Application by a few days in the present case. As the delay was relatively short, I am prepared to grant indulgence to extend time if there is a satisfactory explanation and merit in the Applicant’s intended appeal.

9.  In his supporting affirmation, he explained that his delay was because “I did not receive any letter from the High Court, so I did not know my appeal had been refused. As a result, I missed the appeal deadline. Furthermore, I do not speak English or Chinese, so I had to seek help from my friends to help me submit my appeal to the High Court.” I note that the Form 86, Summons and relevant supporting affirmations filed by the Applicant were prepared in English. I do not consider there to be a disadvantage caused by language barrier. It is also unclear why he did not receive the letter. That said, given that the delay was relatively short, I am prepared to grant indulgence to extend time if there is merit in the Applicant’s intended appeal.

10.  The Applicant did not state any grounds for his intended appeal in his summons and supporting affirmation. At the hearing, he also did not advance any ground for the intended appeal, stating that he only wanted to remain here for a longer time. The allegation that he was “wanted in Vietnam” had been considered in the TCAB Decision [34] and by me when rendering the Court Decision. As stated in the Court Decision, there was no merit in the application for leave to apply for judicial review, as the Applicant did not identify or shown any public law grounds of review. Now he also has not identified any intended grounds of appeal. I am not satisfied that there are merits to the present Application.

11.  Given the above, I do not consider it necessary to discuss any potential prejudice caused to the putative respondent.

12.  Accordingly, I refuse to extend time and the Application is dismissed.