Nguyen Thi Hoang Nhung Acting As the Next Friend of v. Bao v. V. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 2601/2025

[2026] HKCFI 5499

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2601 OF 2025

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

The application

1.The mother (“the mother”) is acting as the next friend of her daughter (“the daughter”), the applicant in this case, who was born on 30 December 2022. This is the daughter’s application.

2.The mother is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission. She lodged a non-refoulement claim to the Director and the Director refused her claim. She appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”), which dismissed her appeal. She applied for judicial review of the Board’s decisions. She failed in the High Court and also in the Court of Final Appeal.

3.Acting for the daughter, the mother lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director rejected the daughter’s application and she appealed to the Board. Having considered her evidence, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected the appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

4.Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the daughter filed Form No. 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

5.By Form CALL-1 dated 28 January 2026 (“the Court’ decision”), the Court dismissed her application as there was no realistic prospect of success in her intended application. On the same day, the Court’s decision was sent to the mother and the daughter at their last known address without being returned by the Post Office. They were deemed to receive the Court’s decision.[1]

6.The time for them to file the notice of appeal expired on 11 February 2026[2].

7.In her summon filed on 20 August 2026, the mother asked for extension of time to file the notice of appeal. It is late for 6 months and 9 days.

8.In her affirmation in support of the application, the mother said that she does not understand English or Chinese. She needs someone to assist her.

Discussion

9.Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A and Order 53, rule 3(3) of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reason, I decide to determine this application on paper without an oral hearing[3].

10.The Court will consider the factors as set out in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam [2016] 2 HKC 393 at para. 27(3) in considering if extension of time should be extended: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted.

11.I shall consider the merits of the daughter’s case.

12.In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, the Court of Appeal held:

“19. The prospect of success of the intended appeal is important: the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued, see Re Rahman Wasif [2019] HKCA 299 at [13]; Re Kpamou Gbotoi Bernard [2019] HKCA 168; and Re Irshad Muhammad [2018] HKCA 864 at [16].”

13.The daughter’s claim was based upon the mother’s allegation that if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her creditor and their subordinates.

14.The Director rejected the daughter’s application because the claim was not substantiated. She appealed to the Board.

15.The Board agreed with the Director that their claim was unsubstantiated.

16.The Board had separately considered the daughter’s specific issues and found that she would not face any real risk if she returns to Vietnam.

17.The mother has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s finding of the facts or to challenge the Court’s decision.

18.There is no realistic prospect of success in the daughter’s intended appeal.

19.In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for their appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss the daughter’s application.

20.I shall treat non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the RHC in these proceedings as a mere irregularity without rendering the daughter’s application a nullity.

The applicant was unrepresented.