Henri Chico Gomes v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

HCAL 3493/2019

[2026] HKCFI 4018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 3493 OF 2019

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.On 10 July 2025 I refused to extend time to the late application of the Applicant for leave 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 no good reason for his serious delay of more than one month with the filing of his application, 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 9 April 2026 from his detention at Tai Tam Gap Correctional Institution to seek 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 24 July 2025, and hence he would be more than 8 months 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 more than 8 months must be considered as very substantial and inordinate, for which he explained in his affirmation that he was then being detained by the Immigration Department, and as he was also unable to read or write in English and without legal representation that he did not know how to appeal until he was later able to get help from some friends, but by then he was already out of time with the filing of his intended appeal.

5.The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 10 July 2025 to his then reported address but was subsequently returned through undelivered post on 18 July 2025, and upon further enquiries with the relevant authorities and the Applicant, the decision was re-sent again on 9 February 2026 to his updated address without being returned that he would still have been some 2 months late with his intended appeal, and even accepting his difficult situation as alleged, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has provided a valid justification for his such serious delay.

6.More importantly, nor did he 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 his affirmation in which he put forth some 9 pages of submissions of essentially a regurgitations of his complaints and criticisms of the decisions of the Director and the Board for rejecting his claim instead of any proper ground for his intended appeal of the Court’s decision. 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 either.

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.

The Applicant was unrepresented