Dao Xuan Trung v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1135/2020

[2025] HKCFI 5212

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1135 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 11 August 2025 (the “Decision”) where I refused leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review in respect of the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim^[1].

2.The Application was made by summons dated 26 September 2025. As the running of time for appeal was suspended during the August summer vacation^[2], the deadline for appeal fell on 15 September 2025^[3]. Hence, there was a relatively short delay of 11 days.

Analysis

3.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.

4.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.

5.Despite the fact that a notice of hearing was sent to the Applicant’s address[4] on 8 October 2025, the Applicant failed to attend the hearing of the Application on 30 October 2025. On the basis of the plaintiff’s want of prosecution alone, I am prepared to dismiss the Application.

6.In any event, even if I were to accept the Applicant’s explanation that the delay was unintentional and caused by an accidental injury (as claimed in his affirmation in support of the Applicant), I am not prepared to grant any time extension as there is no indication that the appeal has any prospect of success. The Applicant only made a general assertion that he “has a good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered at the stage of applying for leave for judicial review”. However, no such ground was identified at all.

7.The Application is accordingly dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented and absent