Nguyen Huy Chung v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1543/2021

[2026] HKCFI 2826

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1543 OF 2021

_____________

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

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 dated 25 May 2018, rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision. He was repatriated to Vietnam on 4 July 2018.

2.By letter dated 6 May 2021, he lodged a subsequent claim with the Director for non-refoulement protection. By Notice of Decision dated 13 July 2021 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director refused his application for subsequent claim.

3.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 Director’s Decision.

4.By Form CALL-1 dated 17 March 2026 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application as there is no realistic prospect of success in his intended application.

5.The Court’s decision was sent to the applicant on 17 March 2026 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 31 March 2026[2].

7.By summons filed on 9 April 2026, the applicant applied for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time. He is late for 9 days.

8.In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant said he did not receive the Court’s decision, and he does not speak English or Chinese.

Discussion

9.Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A and Order 53, rule 3(3) of the RHC, 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.In his previous claim, he said that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his creditor because he was unable to repay his loan. In his subsequent claim, he said that his previous debt had been settled, but he had incurred new debt, which he was unable to repay. The creditor of the new debt will harm or kill him if he returns to Vietnam.

13.The Director rejected his subsequent claim because his problem is the same problem, only the loan is a new loan, which does not constitute new circumstances, which, when taken together with his previous claim, would give him reasonable prospect of success in his subsequent claim.

14.The reasons under paragraph 7 are not valid for his delay.

15.There is no valid reason from the applicant to challenge the Director’s Decision or the Court’s decision.

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

The applicant was unrepresented.