Luu Ngoc Quyet v. The Director of Immigration

HCAL 2889/2025

[2026] HKCFI 2646

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2889 OF 2025

________________________

________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

A.  Introduction

1.By my Decision of 14 January 2026, [2026] HKCFI 242, I dismissed the Applicant’s intended challenge to the 15 September 2025 decision of the Director of Immigration to maintain a prosecution against the Applicant on the charge of “Remaining in Hong Kong without the authority of the Director of Immigration after having landed unlawfully in Hong Kong”.

2.For the various reasons I explained, I held that the application had no merit. First, the application was brought out of time, there was neither a request for nor justification offered for the grant of any extension of time, and I saw no basis to exercise my discretion to extend time. Secondly, the Form 86 failed to identify any proper reasonably arguable public law grounds of review, on which the relief was sought, in breach of the mandatory procedural requirements. Thirdly, nothing in the materials filed by the Applicant put forward any alleged ground of unconstitutionality of the prosecutorial decision.

3.Now, by summons dated 30 April 2026, the Applicant seeks leave to appeal out of time against my previous Decision. The summons is supported by an affirmation of the Applicant of the same date. The affirmation merely states that: (1) the Applicant would like to apply for the extension of time to appeal; (2) the Applicant does not speak English or Chinese so had to seek help from friends to help him submit the appeal, which it was inconvenient to file within the appeal period, and (3) the Applicant hopes the Court will consider and allow him to file the appeal out of time.

4.I am satisfied that it is appropriate to deal with the application on paper.

B.  Merits

5.It is well-settled that, upon an application for an extension of time within which to appeal, the Court will take into account the various circumstances including (1) the length of the delay, (2) the explanation offered for the delay, (3) the merits of the intended appeal, and (4) the question of potential prejudice in the grant or refusal of the extension of time.

6.In this case, the time within which any intended appeal ought to have been brought expired on 28 January 2026. The application for the grant of leave to appeal out of time was made more than three months later. That is a significant delay. Further, the explanation offered for the delay, including that it was inconvenient to file the appeal in the appeal period, is far from satisfactory.

7.Further, no potential or intended grounds of appeal are even identified, and there are therefore no apparent merits to the intended appeal. In any event, in light of the bases of my original Decision, I see no possible merit in any appeal. There is no point in granting an extension of time for bringing an appeal which has no merit.

8.There is no need to go on to consider prejudice.

C.  Result

9.In the circumstances, the application is dismissed. I make no order as to costs.

The applicant, acting in person