Pham Thi Trang v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 941/2021

[2026] HKCFI 3884

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 941 OF 2021

_____________

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

Summons

1.By summons (“Summons”) dated 25 March 2026, the applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal against the order of this court (“Order”) dated 26 January 2026, dismissing the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”). In the decision in the prescribed Form Call-1 of the same date (“Decision”) ([2026] HKCFI 417), the court dismissed the Leave Application against the Appeal Board’s decision dated 26 May 2021 in respect of his appeals against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 24 September 2020 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court (“Rules”), an applicant may appeal to the Court of Appeal against an order refusing leave within 14 days after such refusal. The 14-day period for the applicant to appeal against the Order expired on 10 February 2026. Hence, the applicant’s intended appeal is late for around 1 and ½ months.

3.In giving effect to the underlying objectives of O.1A of the Rules, and to promote procedural economy, this court decides that it is expedient to dispose of the Summons on paper in lieu of a hearing.

The Law

4.The applicable guidelines governing the discretion for deciding whether to allow an extension of time to appeal against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review are as follows. The court shall have regard to: (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the prospect of success 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 Gurang Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346; and Nguyen Thi Hong Thuy [2024] HKCA 1172.

Discussion

5.In the affirmation in support of the Summons, the applicant stated that she had not receive any letter from the High Court, and did not know the Leave Application had been refused. She did not speak English or Chinese. She therefore needed to seek help from friends to help her submit her appeal.

6.I do not accept the applicant’s purported reason for the delay. The applicant was unable to explain why she had allegedly received the court’s documents late. More importantly, the applicant did not explain why she wanted to appeal the Order when she had in fact filed an affirmation on 11 November 2025 to apply for the withdrawal of the Leave Application, stating that she made the withdrawal application out of her free will, and that she fully understood the consequences of the withdrawal: see Decision at [4].

7.A delay of more than 1 month is substantial. Hence, a good reason shall be required. I do not find the applicant has shown any good reason.

8.Regarding the prospects of success, the applicant has not provided any grounds in support of her intended appeal. Hence, she has failed to demonstrate any merits.

Conclusion

9.Having regard to the lengthy delay, an absence of good reason and a complete lack of any prospects of success in the present intended appeal, I therefore refuse to exercise my discretion to grant an extension of time to the applicant to serve her appeal out of time.

10.The Summons is therefore dismissed.

The Applicant is not represented