Re Gurung Govinda

CAMP 126/2025, [2026] HKCA 1759

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 3435

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 126 OF 2025

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2242 OF 2019)

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

DECISION

_____________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1.This is the applicant’s application by summons dated 25 June 2025 for leave to appeal out of time against the judgment of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung dated 27 December 2024 ([2024] HKCFI 3435) (‘the Leave Decision’).  The Judge had by a decision dated 6 March 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 422) (‘the EOT Decision’) refused to grant extension of time to the applicant to appeal against the Leave Decision.

2.By the Leave Decision, the Judge dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review (‘the Leave Application’) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (‘the Board’) dated 12 July 2019 (‘the Board’s Decision’), whereby the Board dismissed his appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) dated 15 November 2018, refusing his non‑refoulement claim.

3.The applicant’s background, the basis of his claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting his appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [10]‑[12], [18] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge stated that there was no valid ground by the applicant to challenge the Board’s Decision and gave his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [15]-[21] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge also set out in detail his reasons for refusing the extension of time to appeal application : see [3]‑[15] of the EOT Decision.  We will not repeat those details herein.

4.The applicant in his summons did not provide any ground of his intended appeal.  The applicant also filed a supporting affirmation which can be summarized as follows :

1)  The applicant was unaware of the 14‑day time limit to appeal and was unrepresented ;

2)  The applicant did not receive any decision from the High Court, and only got to know from the Immigration officer;

3)  The Judge’s decision was unfair, and the applicant was unable to file the appeal.

5.In the applicant’s written submissions lodged on 8 July 2025, the applicant cited case authorities that relate to non‑refoulement applications without specifying how they applied to the particular circumstances of his case.

6.Having considered the documents, we are of the view that it is appropriate to determine this application on paper without a hearing pursuant to Order 59, rule 14A of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A) (‘the RHC’).

I.  Discussion

7.Following the approach this Court adopted in Tang Chai On v Tang Sing Ki [2016] 5 HKLRD 104 at [3]‑[8], we will treat the present application as a renewed application for extension of time to appeal against the Leave Decision.

8.Under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the RHC, the applicant may appeal against the Leave Decision to the Court of Appeal within 14 days of the order.  In deciding whether to extend time to appeal, the Court will take into account the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and the degree of prejudice to the other party if an extension of time is granted.

9.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: Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, at [19].

10.The Court of Appeal’s approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].  In particular, 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 is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst at [14(6)]).

11.As noted by the Judge at [6] of the EOT Decision, the applicant was only four days late.

12.But more importantly, his intended appeal has no substance.  At the outset, his assertions are all general, vague and bare which are not proper grounds of appeal.  In the absence of demonstrating any error in the Leave Decision, the applicant’s assertions are plainly not valid grounds of appeal.  We see no basis to disturb the Leave Decision.

13.As there is no prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal, it is futile to grant the applicant any extension of time to appeal against the Leave Decision.

14.The applicant’s summons is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person