Agus Setiawan v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 480/2020

[2025] HKCFI 3707

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 480 OF 2020

________________________

________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

Introduction

1.The Applicant is an Indonesian. His non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration (the “Director”) on 9 May 2019.

2.The Applicant then challenged the said decision before the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”). By the decision dated 13 March 2020 (the “Board’s Decision”), the Board dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the Director.

3.By Form 86 filed on 1 April 2020, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the Board’s Decision (the “Leave Application”). A hearing was held on 22 April 2025 and the Applicant attended in person. By the decision dated 8 May 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 1754) (the “Court Decision”), the court dismissed the application on the ground that the Applicant’s intended challenge of the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success.

4.By the Summons filed on 3 June 2025, the Applicant applied for extension of time to appeal against the Court Decision, as the 14-day period for him to file his appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court had expired (the “Application”).

5.The Application was heard before me on 11 July 2025 (the “Hearing”). The Applicant attended in person. The Applicant explained that the delay in filing the appeal was because he had accidentally provided the wrong address, so he did not receive the Court Decision by post. I note from the record that the letter issued to the Applicant on 8 May 2025 enclosing the Court Decision was indeed returned to the court on 4 July 2025.

Discussion

6.In considering whether to extend the time to appeal, it is trite that the court will take into account: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason(s) for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the degree of prejudice to the other party if an extension of time is granted. The prospect of success of an intended appeal is important. The court will not grant an extension of time to appeal for a hopeless appeal to be pursued. (see Re Mushtaq Imran Ali [2025] HKCA 705, at §§16-17)

7.In the present case, there was delay of about 2 weeks. I am prepared to accept the Applicant’s explanation that the delay was due to the fact that he did not receive the Court Decision by post. I shall proceed to consider whether there is merit in the intended appeal.

8.In the Summons and in the supporting Affirmation, no grounds of appeal have been provided save and except that the Applicant stated that he did not agree with the Court Decision. At the Hearing, the Applicant indicated that he had nothing to say except to ask the court to consider his case again.

9.I have considered the Court Decision together with the Board’s Decision in detail. I note that the Applicant had also failed to provide any meaningful grounds in support of the Leave Application. I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Court Decision. Neither has the Applicant made any such allegations. The court had explained in the Court Decision why the challenge of the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success (see in particular §8 thereof). I fail to see any prospect of success in the intended appeal.

Conclusion

10.As there is no prospect of success in the appeal, I refuse to extend the time for the appeal, and the Application is hereby dismissed.

The applicant was unrepresented and appeared in person.