Pham Thi Lan v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CAMP 135/2025, [2026] HKCA 1735

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 1585

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 135 OF 2025

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 191 OF 2020)

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1.On 28 November 2025, this Court (Anthony Chan JA and Wilson Chan J) handed down a Judgment ([2025] HKCA 1056) (“Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s summons filed on 23 July 2025 (“Summons”) applying for an extension of time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Michael Wong dated 25 April 2025 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review concerned the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the Applicant’s application, as well as this Court’s reasons for dismissing it, were set out in the Judgment. We will not repeat them here.

3.By a Notice of Motion filed on 25 March 2026, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”).

4.Pursuant to s.24(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“Ordinance”), the Notice of Motion should have been filed within 28 days from the date of the Judgment, i.e., 29 December 2025. This application is out of time by almost three months.

5.The Applicant has not made any application for an extension of time to file the Notice of Motion. However, this Court may exercise its discretion to grant an extension of time pursuant to s.24(5) of the Ordinance provided good grounds are shown by the Applicant: see Re Rajaram Razeena [2019] HKCA 959 at [1.4].

6.In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant repeated the grounds set out in the Statement which she lodged in support of the Summons (except the claim that relocation would not be feasible because she was not in good health, not active and therefore disadvantaged in the labour market).

7.The Applicant filed an affirmation on 25 March 2026 (“Affirmation”) in support of the Notice of Motion. In the Affirmation, the Applicant repeated the same grounds as those in the affirmation filed on 23 July 2025 in support of the Summons and added a new ground claiming that there is a “good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered” in the judicial review stage.

8.The Applicant lodged written submissions on 8 April 2026 (“Written Submissions”) in which she quoted from various judgments on the “high standards of fairness”, claimed that the Board’s adjudicator acted in a procedurally unfair manner and argued that this Court should allow her to appeal to the CFA on a higher standard of fairness.

9.There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of the present type on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing in accordance with para.3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

10.The matters stated in the Notice of Motion do not constitute any proper ground for granting leave to appeal to the CFA. The Applicant has not raised any question of great general or public importance for the CFA to consider, as required by s.22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under s.22(1)(b).

11.The grounds repeated in the Notice of Motion were rejected by this Court (Judgment, [11]-[12]). The Affirmation and Written Submissions are without substance. This Court rejected the Applicant’s allegation made in the affirmation in support of the Summons and now repeated by her in the Affirmation that the Judge reached his decision “unfairly without allowing [her] an opportunity to clarify [her] case and situation in [her] country” (Judgment, [10]). In any event, the Notice of Motion did not identify any error in the Judgment, nor did the Affirmation or the Written Submissions. There is no merit in this application.

12.As for the delay in filing the Notice of Motion, the Applicant has not provided any explanation therefor. We do not find that there is any ground to grant an extension of time.

13.For these reasons, we decline to grant an extension of time and dismiss the Notice of Motion with no order as to costs.

The Applicant acting in person