PHAM THI MAI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 3477/2019

[2026] HKCFI 1137

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 3477 OF 2019

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  On 8 August 2025, the court sent the order together with the decision of this court in the prescribed form Call-1 by ordinary post to the applicant’s address at Canton Road as updated by the Immigration Department dated 27 May 2025.

2.  In the decision, the court dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to appeal for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the Appeal Board’s decision dated 14 November 2019, dismissing the applicant’s appeal against a decision of the Director of Immigration dated 7 July 2017, rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds.

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 this case for the applicant to file her appeal would have expired on 4 September 2025. After a delay of about two months, the applicant issued a summons (“Summons”) dated 31 October 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 this morning, the applicant appeared in person and made submissions.

The Law

5.  The guidelines governing the discretion of an extension of time to appeal against a decision refusing the Leave Application will apply in the present case. 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.

6.  In the applicant supporting affirmation of the Summons, the applicant stated that she did not receive the letter from the court. It was only until she went to the staff, which I understand it to be referring to the Immigration Department, that she was told that the Leave Application was refused. She therefore came to the court to file the Summons.

7.  At the hearing this morning, the applicant still repeated that she did not receive either the order or the decision and she has not read my decision of the court. Even up to now, she has not read my decision. I therefore asked the applicant that since she had not read my decision, why she wanted to appeal without even knowing the reasoning in my decision.

8.  She then told me that when she went to report to the Immigration Department, they said they would repatriate her back to Vietnam. Her intended appeal against my decision had nothing to do with any mistakes in my decision. All she wanted to achieve by filing the Summons was to have more time to be allowed to stay in Hong Kong.

9.  Since the applicant had confirmed with the court that she had not received the court’s order and the decision, I therefore inquired from her regarding the address. According to the court’s documents, the decision and the order were sent to the applicant at Room C, Floor 3, 1046 Canton Road, Yau Tsim Mong, Kowloon, which was the address the Immigration Department updated on 27 May 2025.

10.  According to the address the applicant provided in the Summons as well as the address she updated this morning, it appears that the applicant no longer resides at the Canton Road address but at an address in Tai Kok Tsui Road. The applicant told the court that she moved out from the Canton Road address around March or April 2025, however, she was not able to say for sure.

11.  Since the updating of the applicant’s address given by the Immigration Department was in May 2025, I therefore asked the applicant why she did not inform the Immigration Department once she moved out from the Canton Road address. The applicant explained that she assumed that the social worker who followed her case would inform the Immigration Department of the change of address.

Discussion

12.  In considering the length of delay, I believe that a delay of almost two months is not short. As for the reason for the delay, I am also not satisfied that the applicant has provided a good explanation.

13.  As I have just discussed above, it is plain that the applicant’s reason for not having allegedly received the court’s documents, in my view, is plainly the sole fault of the applicant in failing to update either the court or the Immigration Department of her change of address. So, if there is any mistake regarding the non-delivery of the documents, the mistake was solely her own making.

14.  In the present case, I find it most disconcerting 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 as the applicant had evidently confirmed that all she wanted was to have more time to be allowed to stay in Hong Kong. It is an abuse of process of the court for the applicant to file her intended appeal for the sole motive of playing for time.

15.  As for the prospects of success, clearly as the applicant confirmed that she has not read the decision, she is not able to raise any grounds in respect of her intended challenge to the decision. Hence, I find that there is not a good prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal.

16.  Whether to extend time to appeal is the discretion of the court. Having carefully examined the facts and the evidence of this case, I am disinclined to exercise my discretion to extend time to the applicant to serve her appeal. The Summons is therefore dismissed.