Case Document

100%

HCAL 638/2021

[2026] HKCFI 3303

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 638 OF 2021

_____________

BETWEEN

	TRAN MINH SAU	Applicant
	and
	TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD	Putative Respondent
	and
	DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION	Putative Interested Party

_____________

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan in Chambers

Date of Decision:

6 July 2026

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.On 18 November 2025 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in dismissing his appeal regarding his non-refoulement claim upon finding that none of the grounds put forward by him reasonably arguable for his intended challenge, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the process before the Director of Immigration (“Director”) or the Board or in their decisions, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success in his intended application.

2.The Applicant now by a summons issued on 8 December 2025 (of which was only recently brought to the court’s attention) seeks leave to appeal against that decision out of time, as the 14-day period for him to file his appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A ended on 2 December 2025, and hence he was about 6 days late with his intended appeal.

3.In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the Court shall have regard to (i) 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 an extension of time were granted: 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; Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346.

4.In the Applicant’s case, a delay of 6 days may not be regarded as significant, for which he explained in his affirmation that he never received the decision in the mail, nor did he understand English or know how to file his appeal until later when he was able to get help from his friends, but by then he was already out of time to appeal.

5.The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 18 November 2025 to his then reported address without being returned through undelivered post, and in the absence of any reliable evidence to corroborate his bare assertions, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has provided a good or valid reason for his delay, but given its relative insignificance, I propose to focus on the prospect of success of his intended appeal.

6.However, the Applicant has failed to put forward any proper or valid draft or proposed grounds of appeal, or any particulars of any error in the decision or why it may be reasonably arguable that the decision was unfair or unreasonable either in his summons or in his affirmation. As such, and in the absence of any error in the decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not see any prospect of success in his intended appeal.

7.In the premises, and for the reasons given, it would be futile to extend time for what appears to be a hopeless appeal. Accordingly, I refuse his application for leave to appeal out of time, and dismiss the Applicant’s summons.