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

HCAL 3476/2019

[2026] HKCFI 897

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 3476 OF 2019

________________

BETWEEN

________________

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

Introduction

1.  By a summons (“Summons”) dated 4 November 2025, the applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the order of this court dated 20 August 2025 (“Order”), dismissing her application for leave to apply for judicial review against the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 20 November 2019. The Order together with the decision set out in the Form Call-1 were posted to the applicant by ordinary post to the address updated by the Immigration Department on 27 May 2025. There has been no return of the post undelivered.

2.  Before the scheduled hearing for the Summons on 29 January 2026, the court had sent to the applicant by ordinary post to her last known address as set out in the Summons, a notice of hearing dated 29 December 2025 with a reminder of the consequence of absence. The applicant did not turn up at the hearing. Telephone calls were made to the applicant’s given telephone number, but to no avail. The information before this court shows that the said notice of hearing has not been returned undelivered through the post.

3.  In the circumstances, this court will dispose of the Summons according to the materials already placed before the court.

The law

4.  Pursuant to O 53 r 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 the applicant to file his appeal had expired on 4 September 2025. The Summons was therefore late for more than 2 months.

5.  The guidelines governing the discretion for an extension of time to appeal against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review therefore apply. A 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

6.  A delay of more than 2 months is substantial. A good explanation for the delay shall be required. Apart from stating in her affirmation in support of the Summons that she did not receive any letter from the court and that she could not read English, and therefore did not know how to file an appeal, the applicant did not provide any other reasons to explain for the delay. Neither has she advanced any proposed grounds of appeal against the Order.

7.  In absence of good reason to explain for the delay and any proposed grounds for the intended appeal, I am not satisfied that there is a good prospect of success in his intended appeal.

8.  For the reasons stated above, this court is disinclined to exercise its discretion to grant any extension of time to the applicant to appeal against the Order, and accordingly dismiss the Summons.