Bui Tien Hoai v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 2660/2024

[2025] HKCFI 4931

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 2660 OF 2024

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

DECISION

_____________

The application

1.The applicant is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission and he lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director rejected his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). Having considered his evidence, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

2.Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the applicant filed Form No. 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.He applied to the Court to withdraw his application

4.By Form CALL-1 dated 13 May 2025 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application.

5.The Court’s decision was sent to the applicant on 13 May 2025 at his last known address without being returned from the Post Office. He is deemed to receive the Court’s decision[1].

6.The time for filing the notice of appeal expired on 27 May 2025[2].

7.By summons filed on 18 August 2025, the applicant applied for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time. He is late for more than 2 months.

8.In support of his application, the applicant submitted in his application that he asked for repatriation because he thought he could fix his problems. Now things have gone not as he thought and he wants to withdraw his application to withdraw.

Discussion

9.Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A and Order 53, rule 3(3) of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reason, I decide to determine this application on paper without an oral hearing[3].

10.The Court will consider the factors as set out in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam [2016] 2 HKC 393 at para. 27(3) in considering if extension of time should be extended: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted. I shall consider the merits of his case.

11.In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, the Court of Appeal held:

“19. The prospect of success of the intended appeal is important: the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued, see Re Rahman Wasif [2019] HKCA 299 at [13]; Re Kpamou Gbotoi Bernard [2019] HKCA 168; and Re Irshad Muhammad [2018] HKCA 864 at [16].”

12.The applicant’s application was dismissed on his application for withdrawal of his application for leave for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. The discretion to dismiss his application was made because there was nothing outstanding in his action[4]. The file should not be kept in the Registry indefinitely. Furthermore, the applicant should not be allowed to reinstate his application after a period of time, so that he may stay in Hong Kong illegally indefinitely.

13.In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for his appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

The applicant was unrepresented.