Agus Setiawan v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 173/2025, [2026] HKCA 1862

On Appeal from [2025] HKCFI 3707

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 173 OF 2025

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 480 OF 2020)

________________________

________________

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

Hon Coleman JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

A.  Introduction

1.The Applicant is an Indonesian who made a non-refoulement claim, which was rejected by the Director of Immigration on 9 May 2019.  The Applicant’s appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) was dismissed on 13 March 2020.

2.By Form 86 dated 1 April 2020, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the Board’s Decision.  Following a hearing attended by the Applicant in person, Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulement Claims) Philips Wong dismissed the application by his Decision dated 8 May 2025, [2025] HKCFI 1754 (“CFI Decision”), on the ground that the Applicant’s intended challenge was not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospect of success.  Indeed, the Deputy Judge noted that the Applicant had failed to provide any meaningful grounds in support of the leave application.

3.The Applicant subsequently applied for an extension of time to appeal against the CFI Decision.  The Deputy Judge proceeded on the basis that he was prepared to accept the Applicant’s explanation for the two-week delay.  However, the application was dismissed on 29 August 2025, [2025] HKCFI 3707, on the basis that there was no prospect of success in the proposed appeal so that there was no reason to extend time.  The Deputy Judge noted that no grounds of appeal had been provided, and that at the hearing the Applicant had merely indicated he had nothing to say except to ask the Court to consider his case again.

4.On 1 September 2025, the Applicant, acting in person, renewed his application to this Court for an extension of time to appeal against the CFI Decision.  Pursuant to directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the Applicant had until 15 September 2025 to lodge written submissions, failing which the Applicant was to be deemed to have abandoned his right to rely on written submissions and the application would be referred to the Court of Appeal for consideration based on the available documents and materials.  Even up to now, the Applicant has not lodged any written submissions.

5.In the circumstances, we are satisfied that it is appropriate to determine the application on paper.  This is our Decision.

B.  No Merit

6.The Applicant’s summons renewing the application for an extension of time to appeal merely states that he wants to appeal against the CFI Decision.  The Applicant’s affirmation filed at the same time merely stated that he was late to appeal and requested an extension of time.  As already stated, the Applicant also failed to file any written submissions in support of his application.

7.Therefore, even if it is assumed that the Applicant would advance the same reason for the delay (as was accepted by the Deputy Judge), there still remains the absence of any proposed grounds of appeal.  We also see no arguable errors of law or approach in the CFI Decision.

C.  Result

8.In the circumstances, we dismiss the application, with no order as to costs.

The applicant, acting in person