AARON SMITH CHINONSO JOHN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1360/2020

[2025] HKCFI 5214

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1360 OF 2020

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

Introduction

1.  This is an application for extension of time to appeal (the “Application”) against my decision dated 19 August 2025 (the “Decision”) where I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review in respect of the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  The Application was made by summons dated 4 September 2025. At that time, the 14-day period for appeal had not yet expired. By reason of section 31(1) of the High Court Ordinance (Cap 4), the month of August which is the summer vacation is to be excluded for the purpose of calculating the 14-day time limit for filing the Notice of Appeal unless otherwise directed by the court, see e.g.: Do Hung Loi v Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2023] HKCA 1081 at [12]; Re Muhammad Ali Pahat [2025] HKCA 657 at [3]. In the present case, I have not made any direction for time to run during the summer vacation.

3.  Nevertheless, the Applicant was out of time by the time of the Application came before me at the hearing on 30 October 2025 so it is necessary to consider the Application.

Analysis

4.  In considering whether a time extension to appeal should be granted, it is well established that the court shall have regard to (a) 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 extension of time were granted, see Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226 and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346.

5.  Even in the case where the delay is a short one, the arguability of the intended appeal is an important consideration, 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; Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226.

6.  In the present case, even if I were to assume in the Applicant’s favour that the period of delay was short and that his failure to lodge the appeal was unintentional due to a mistaken belief that the time for appeal had expired when he filed the Application on 4 September 2025, I am of the view that no time extension should be granted as the proposed appeal has no prospect of success:-

(1) In his Affidavit dated 4 September 2025 in support of the Application, the Applicant has failed to indicate any proposed ground of appeal or error in the Decision.

(2) At the hearing, he merely said he did not want to go back to his home country because now he has a child in Hong Kong who is sick and he needed to take care of her. This is a new ground which was not raised in his leave application for judicial review and no affidavit evidence has been provided. In any event, I cannot see how this can assist him in the proposed appeal. Even if his daughter has the right of abode in

Hong Kong, it does not give rise to any right for the Applicant to remain in Hong Kong, see: Comilang Milagros Tecson v Director of Immigration (2019) 22 HKCFAR 59 at §§38-50

7.  Accordingly, the Application is dismissed.