Tran Huu Nam v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 615/2025, [2026] HKCA 1465

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 3440

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 615 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1031 OF 2020)

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1.On 10 March 2026, this Court (Anthony Chan JA and Wilson Chan J) handed down a Judgment ([2026] HKCA 132) (“Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Val Chow dated 11 August 2025 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review and an extension of time for the Applicant to file the leave application. The intended judicial review concerned the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the Applicant’s appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, were set out in the Judgment. We will not repeat them here.

3.By a Notice of Motion filed on 14 May 2026, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”).

4.Pursuant to s.24(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“Ordinance”), the Notice of Motion should have been filed within 28 days from the date of the Judgment, i.e., 7 April 2026.

5.The Applicant has not made any application for an extension of time to file the Notice of Motion. However, this Court may exercise its discretion to grant an extension of time pursuant to s.24(5) of the Ordinance provided good grounds are shown by the applicant: see Re Rajaram Razeena [2019] HKCA 959 at [1.4].

6.In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant repeated the grounds set out in his Notice of Appeal filed on 18 August 2025 (Judgment, [4]) and added that it would be quite possible for the creditor and gangsters to find him at his new residence with “the nationwide social network of gangsters and clandestine connections with corrupt people in the government and police apparatus”.

7.The Applicant has failed to lodge any submissions for the present application in breach of the Directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 14 May 2026. There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of the present type on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing in accordance with para.3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

8.The matters stated in the Notice of Motion do not constitute any proper ground for granting leave to appeal to the CFA. The Applicant has not raised any question of great general or public importance for the CFA to consider, as required by s.22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.

9.We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under s.22(1)(b).

10.The grounds repeated in the Notice of Motion were rejected by this Court (Judgment, [8]). The Applicant’s new contention that he is liable to be found at his new residence is a bare assertion and does not constitute any viable ground of appeal. In any event, the Notice of Motion did not identify any error in the Judgment. There is no merit in this application.

11.As for the delay in filing the Notice of Motion, the Applicant has provided no explanation whatsoever.

12.For these reasons, we refuse to grant an extension of time and dismiss the Notice of Motion with no order as to costs.

The Applicant acting in person