Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 905/2020

[2025] HKCFI 5211

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 905 OF 2020

_____________

BETWEEN

	Jondhi Pranoto	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	1^st Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	2^nd Putative Respondent

____________

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Val Chow in Chambers

Date of Hearing:	30 October 2025
Date of Decision:	13 November 2025

______________

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 1 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 11 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.Be that as it may, the Applicant was out of time by the time of hearing of the Application 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 misunderstanding of the relevant procedural rules, I am of the view that no time extension should be granted as the proposed appeal has no prospect of success:-

(1) In his 2^nd affirmation in support of the Application, the Applicant only indicated his intention to appeal the Decision.

(2) At the hearing, the Applicant was completely unable to provide any ground of appeal or point out any error in the Decision. He only mentioned that he did not want to be sent back to his home country.

7.Accordingly, I dismiss the Application.