Hoang Gia Long v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1284/2020

[2026] HKCFI 5942

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1284 OF 2020

______________________

BETWEEN

______________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Introduction

1.On 10 February 2026, the court sent an order (“Order”) together with the decision of this court in the prescribed Form “CALL-1” [2026] HKCFI 828 (“Decision”). These documents were sent to the applicant’s last known address updated by the Immigration Department on 28 October 2025 by ordinary post.

2.The last known address provided by the Immigration Department was an address at Room C, Floor 3, 75 Prince Edward Road West.

3.In the Decision, the court dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the Appeal Board’s decision dated 11 June 2020 dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 20 April 2018, rejecting the applicant’s non‑refoulement claim.

4.Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, the time limit for an appeal to the Court of Appeal is 14 days after an order of the court.  The deadline for the applicant to file his appeal would have been expired on 25 February 2025. 

5.After a delay of about 4 ½ months, the applicant issued a summons (“Summons”) dated 13 July 2026, together with a supporting affirmation to apply for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Order.

6.At the hearing of the Summons, the applicant appeared in person and made submissions.

The Law

7.The applicable guidelines governing the discretion for allowing an extension of time to appeal against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review are as follows.  The court shall have regard to: (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the prospects of success of the intended appeal; and (iv)  the prejudice to the respondent, if an extension of time were granted: see Re MK HCMP 2609/2016, 10 January 2017; Chu On Fong Winter v The Appeal Panel (Housing) HCMP 982/2017, 20 July 2017; Islam Raja Rais v Director of Immigration HCMP 881/2017, 26 June 2017; Re Gurang Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346; and Nguyen Thi Hong Thuy [2024] HKCA 1172.

Discussion

8.In the supporting affirmation, the applicant gave two reasons to support the application.  The first reason that he gave was that he did not receive any documents from the High Court.  The second reason he gave was that he could not speak English or Chinese and he had to seek help from his friends to submit the application to the court. 

9.At the hearing this morning, I asked the applicant to elaborate more on his first reason that he had not received the court’s document.  He said that at the time when the Decision was posted to him, he no longer resided at the last known address at Room C.  He said that he had in fact moved out from the Room C address a long time ago and that he had moved to a lot of different places.

10.In light of what he told the court, the court then asked him whether he was obliged to report to the Immigration Department every time when he reported on his own recognizance when there was a change of address.  The applicant confirmed that he was indeed required to report to the Immigration Department every two weeks.  And every time when he was asked to confirm the address stated in the recognizance form, he simply nodded.  He said the reason why he nodded because he could not quite understand what was actually written in the form.

11.When the court further asked him to clarify that even though he was not able to understand the whole address, at least he would have noted the words “C” and “Floor 3”, particularly the number “3”.  The applicant then said, “Oh, in fact, he had informed the officer that he had a new address and he would provide the address later.” 

12.I reject the applicant’s explanation in relation to his purported explanation that he did not receive the documents because of his change of address.  I find the applicant kept changing his version of explanation.  At first, he told the court that the reason why he had not informed the Immigration Department of his change of address because they did not ask him and he did not know how to inform them.  When the court asked him about the fortnight’s reporting to the Immigration Department, then he gave an explanation which in my view is almost tantamount to misleading the Immigration Department by nodding at an address which he clearly knew it to have been wrong.

13.The applicant’s lie, in my view, is overwhelmingly evident regarding the last known address containing the alphabet “C” denoting the room number and the floor number “3”, which he would have been able to read.  When being confronted, he changed his evidence completely by lying to the court that he had informed the Immigration officer of the change of address and that he would allegedly let them know of the address later.  I found this is a complete lie.

14.I reject his explanation that he had not received the court’s Decision and the Order.  The truth of the matter is, as I have informed the applicant, the Decision and the Order that were posted to the applicant at his last known address were never returned to the court.  So, it was a regular service of the documents on him.

15.I also do not accept the applicant’s second reason for the delay of not able to read English or Chinese and not able to find friends to help him to lodge the documents within time.  The truth of the matter is even according to his own version, which I do not accept, he had not acted promptly when he allegedly only become aware of the Decision in May 2026.

16.According to the applicant, he kept referring to his Vietnamese clansmen, to whom he said he had entrusted all the enquiries in relation to his case.  If that is the case, the applicant would have little difficulty to find these or the same clansmen or different clansmen to help him do all the paperwork.

17.A delay of 4 ½ months is a lengthy delay.  A very good reasons shall be required.  After having listened to his explanation given at the hearing and considered the matters he raised in his supporting affirmation, I do not accept that the applicant has given a reasonable explanation for the delay.

18.He has not demonstrated that he acted promptly as soon as he said he purportedly became aware of the Decision and the Order of the court.  In his supporting affirmation as well as at the hearing today, despite the court having spent a lot of time with the applicant, he is still unable to advance any grounds in support of his intended appeal against the Order.

19.I am not satisfied that there are good prospects of success in the applicant’s intended appeal. 

20.For the reasons stated above, I refuse to exercise my discretion to extend the time to the applicant to serve his appeal.  The Summons is therefore dismissed.

The applicant appeared in person