Nguyen Thi Nhung v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

HCAL 1024/2021

[2026] HKCFI 4254

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1024 OF 2021

____________

____________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

Background

1.By way of summons filed on 14 May 2026 (“the Summons”), the applicant applies for an extension of time to appeal against my order made on 29 April 2026, which dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 4 June 2021.

2.Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A, stipulates that “Where an application for leave is refused by a judge …, the applicant may appeal against the judge’s order to the Court of Appeal within 14 days after such order”.

3.In Re Li Jing [2015] 2 HKLRD 933, it was held that the time for lodging an appeal against the refusal of granting leave to apply for judicial review started to run from the date of the making of the order, not from the date when the sealed order was issued, nor from the date when the sealed order was mailed, and no account should be taken of the fact that the applicant received the sealed order late (see also Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226).

4.As my order was made on 29 April 2026, the last day for the applicant to lodge an appeal was on 13 May 2026. Thus, the time for appealing against my order has expired, and the applicant requires leave from this court to appeal out of time. Nevertheless, the date of filing the Summons was just one day after the deadline for lodging the intended appeal. In other words, the applicant was just one day late if she could lodge the appeal instead of filing the Summons.

The applicable law

5.In considering whether to extend time for appealing a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the court will take into account: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted (see Jagg Singh v Torture Claims Appeal Board and another [2020] HKCA 844).

6.However, the crucial consideration in such an application is whether the applicant can show that there is a reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review (see Re Gurung Min Bahadur, supra), and the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued (see Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702).

Discussion

7.In her supporting affirmation dated 14 May 2026, the applicant explained her delay in lodging the intended appeal by saying that she did not receive the refusal letter from this court in the 14 days appeal period, she does not speak English or Chinese, so she had to seek help from her friends to help her to submit her appeal to this court and it was inconvenient for her to file the appeal in the appeal period.

8.At the hearing of the Summons on 14 July 2026, the applicant also explained her delay in lodging the intended appeal by saying that she did not receive the court’s letter, but she could not explain why she did not receive the court’s letter even though the address for sending the court’s letter to her was her correct address.

9.The explanation given by the applicant for her delay is clearly unsatisfactory, as she could not offer any explanation as to why she did not receive the court’s letter when her address was correct. Nevertheless, as the delay was only for one day, I am not taking any issue on her delay.

10.However, there was simply no valid ground for the applicant’s intended appeal at all. In both the Summons and her supporting affirmation, the applicant did not give any grounds for her intended appeal. At the hearing, when I asked the applicant for her grounds of appeal, she simply said that she would like to stay in Hong Kong for a period of time.

11.For this application to be successful, the applicant must demonstrate that this court had made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before this court or was otherwise plainly wrong (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524).

12.The applicant failed to demonstrate any of the above, and hence there is simply no valid ground for the intended appeal.

13.As there is no reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal, I am not prepared to grant any extension of time for the applicant to pursue such a hopeless appeal.

Conclusion

14.For reasons aforesaid, the Summons is dismissed.

The applicant appearing in person