Vu Van Hung v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1399/2022

[2026] HKCFI 4629

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1399 OF 2022

________________________

BETWEEN

________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

Introduction

1.The Applicant is a Vietnamese. He entered into Hong Kong illegally by boat on 21 August 2020. He was subsequently arrested by the police. He then lodged the non-refoulement claim.

2.On 15 July 2021, the Director of Immigration refused the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim. The Applicant’s subsequent appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) was dismissed on 15 November 2022 (the “Board’s Decision”).

3.By Form 86 filed on 5 December 2022, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the Board’s Decision (the “Leave Application”). The hearing of the Leave Application took place on 29 April 2026 and the Applicant attended in person. Despite having requested the oral hearing himself, the Applicant however indicated at the hearing that he had nothing to say in respect of the Leave Application.

4.By the decision dated 8 May 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 2531) (the “Court’s Decision”), this Court dismissed the Leave Application on the ground that the Applicant’s intended challenge to the Board’s Decision is not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospects of success.

5.By the Summons filed on 9 June 2026, the Applicant applied for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s Decision, as the 14-day period for him to file the appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court had expired (the “Application”).

6.The Application was heard on 27 July 2026 and the Applicant attended in person. At the hearing, the Applicant said he did not want to leave Hong Kong. Apart from that, the Applicant indicated that he had nothing to say in respect of the Application.

Discussion

7.In considering whether to extend the time to appeal, it is trite that the court will take into account: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason(s) for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the degree of prejudice to the other party if an extension of time is granted. The prospect of success of an intended appeal is important. The court will not grant an extension of time to appeal for a hopeless appeal to be pursued. (see Re Mushtaq Imran Ali [2025] HKCA 705, at §§16-17)

8.In the present case, there was delay of about two weeks. I have considered the explanation given by the Applicant in the supporting Affirmation. I am prepared to give him the benefit of doubt and accept his explanation for the delay.

9.I shall proceed to consider the merit of the intended appeal before deciding on the Application.

10.In the Summons and in the supporting Affirmation, the Applicant did not provide any valid grounds in support of the intended appeal. In the supporting Affirmation, the Applicant simply stated that he did not know how to “testify” as he was not a lawyer. Further, he said he was not well educated and so he had asked someone to help him to prepare the Leave Application before. That was why he had nothing to say in respect of the Leave Application on the last occasion. The Applicant further stated in the Affirmation that he had just learnt this time that there is a good ground of appeal. However, all he was able to say at the hearing was that he did not want to leave Hong Kong

11.In an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant. If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed. The Court of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it was a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524, at §14(6)).

12.I have considered the Court’s Decision together with the Board’s Decision in detail. The Board had considered and provided adequate and valid reasons in dismissing the Applicant’s case. The Court had reviewed the Board’s Decision, and dealt with all the grounds put forward by the Applicant in support of the Leave Application (§§5-19 of the Court’s Decision). I do not see any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Court’s Decision. Neither has the Applicant made any such allegations. It is incumbent upon the Applicant to demonstrate with sufficient particulars that the Court had erred in the Court’s Decision. The Applicant has plainly failed to do so. Accordingly, I fail to see any prospect of success in the intended appeal.

Conclusion

13.As there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay, and more importantly no prospect of success in the intended appeal, I refuse to extend the time for the appeal. The Application is hereby dismissed.

The applicant was unrepresented and appeared in person