Case Document

100%

HCAL 1770/2025

[2026] HKCFI 5571

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1770 OF 2025

____________

BETWEEN

	Vu Van Hoang	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

____________

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge Michael WONG in Chambers (Open to Public)

Date of Hearing:	18 September 2026
Date of Handing Down of Decision:	30 September 2026

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

Background

1.By way of summons filed on 28 July 2026 (“the Summons”), the applicant applies for an extension of time to appeal against my order made on 17 June 2026, which dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 19 May 2025.

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 17 June 2026, the last day for the applicant to lodge an appeal was on 1 July 2026. However, 1 July 2026 was a public holiday. By virtue of section 71(1)(b) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance, Cap 1, when the last day of the period in question is a public holiday, the period shall include the next following day, not being a public holiday or a gale warning day or black rainstorm warning day. The next following day was 2 July 2026. Thus, the time for appealing against my order has expired, and the applicant requires leave from this court to appeal out of time.

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 his supporting affirmation dated 28 July 2026, the applicant explained his delay in lodging the appeal by saying that he did not speak English or Chinese, he had to seek help from his friends to help him to submit his appeal to this court and it was inconvenient for him to file the appeal in the appeal period.

8.However, at the hearing of the Summons on 18 September 2026, the applicant gave another explanation by saying that after he had received this court’s decision, he asked his lawyer to handle the appeal, but he did not know why it was late.

9.The applicant’s explanation in his supporting affirmation is inconsistent with the explanation given at the hearing. In any event, there was no reason given as to why he could not have sought help from his friends within the appeal period. Just by saying that it was inconvenient for him to do so is insufficient. There was also no reason given for his lawyer’s delay in lodging the appeal for him.

10.Moreover, the applicant did not give any valid ground for his intended appeal in the Summons or his supporting affirmation. The applicant only explained why he withdrew his application for judicial review and then cancelled the repatriation request in his affirmation. At the oral hearing of the Summons, the applicant also explained the same matters.

11.However, the applicant’s withdrawal of his leave application was refused by me on 17 June 2026. His leave application was dismissed by me because he confirmed at that time that his debt problem in Vietnam had been resolved and it was safe for him to return to Vietnam. If there was any change for his situation after my decision was made, the applicant still could not use it to challenge my decision. Thus, there was simply no valid ground of appeal for the intended appeal.

12.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). The applicant has failed to demonstrate any of the above.

13.As there is no satisfactory explanation for the applicant’s delay in lodging the intended appeal, and 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.