Nguyen Thi Hong Le v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1994/2023

[2026] HKCFI 5333

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1994 OF 2023

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

Introduction

1.This is the applicant’s application by way of summons dated 9 September 2026 for an extension of time to appeal against the decision of this court dated 14 July 2026 (“the Decision”). I refused her application for leave to apply for judicial review under the Decision.

2.In Jagg Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office[1], the Court of Appeal held, at §10, that in considering whether to extend time for appealing against 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 prospects of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted.

3.Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A and Order 53, rule 3(3) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4) (“RHC”), having considered the applicant’s reason, I decide to determine this application on paper without an oral hearing: see Ogbozor Tochukwu Eugene v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Director of Immigration [2022] HKCA 607, (Hon Kwan VP and G Lam JA, 6 May 2022) at §16.

Length of the delay and reasons for delay

4.Under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the RHC, where an application for leave to apply for judicial review 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.

5.The time to appeal, therefore, expired on 29 July 2026. The delay was substantial at 43 days.

6.In her supporting affirmation, the applicant alleges that she received the court’s decision late because the neighbour who shared the same mailbox with her had kept the letter. The neighbour only returned the letter to her at the beginning of September. Further, she claims that she was suffering from morning sickness due to her pregnancy and on 27 August she was hospitalized in Tuen Mun Hospital due to symptoms of a miscarriage. However, the medical records produced by the applicant shows that she was first admitted to the hospital on 1 September 2026 only.

7.I do not consider the above are valid reasons to explain the very substantial delay in this case. I would reject her reasons for the delay.

8.In any event, given my view on the prospects of success of her intended appeal as explained below, I consider that this application for an extension of time should be refused.

Prospects of success of the intended appeal

9.The procedural history against which this application arose is as follows. On 6 January 2023, the Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dismissed her claim for non-refoulement protection (“the Board’s Decision”). On 7 November 2023, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review. In refusing her leave application, this court held, inter alia, that the Board had carefully considered the applicant’s evidence. The Board’s Decision was comprehensive with adequate reasons. This court did not find any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision and was not satisfied the applicant’s intended challenge of the same was reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success. As a result, the applicant’s leave application was refused.

10.The applicant now seeks an extension of time to appeal the Decision. The applicant’s summons and supporting affirmation did not specify any grounds for the intended appeal. It only repeated her previous claim that her life would be in danger if she is refouled to her home country. As recorded in the Decision, the applicant had not raised any specific grounds to challenge the Board’s Decision under the Form 86. I also could not find any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision. Thus, I found her intended application for judicial review has no realistic prospects of success. It follows that her intended appeal to the Decision also has no prospects of success.

Prejudice to the respondent

11.As I have held, the applicant’s intended appeal has no prospects of success. To allow such a challenge to proceed when it is already out of time would only drain the intended respondent’s time and resources unnecessarily and cause prejudice to it.

Conclusion

12.In view of the lack of prospects of success in the intended appeal and the prejudice to the intended respondent, the application for an extension of time to appeal is refused.

The applicant was unrepresented.