Vu Van Lai v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

On 23 October 2026, the Court of Appeal (Kwan VP and Au JA) dismissed the applicant's summons for leave to appeal out of time in Vu Van Lai v Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2026] HKCA 1885. The applicant, a Vietnamese national, acted in person.

The applicant had twice entered Hong Kong illegally and lodged non-refoulement claims, in 2016 and 2021. His second claim rested on a fear of harm from a creditor in Vietnam. The Director of Immigration rejected the claim on all applicable grounds (torture risk, BOR 2 and 3 risks, and persecution risk), and the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissed his appeal on 3 October 2023, finding that the alleged harm had not attained the requisite minimum level of severity and that his account contained significant discrepancies and implausibility.

The applicant filed Form 86 in HCAL 2225/2023 seeking leave to apply for judicial review. He then filed an affirmation on 11 July 2024 seeking to withdraw the application, stating it was now safe to return to Vietnam. Deputy High Court Judge Lung dismissed the leave application on 5 September 2024 ([2024] HKCFI 2161). The applicant subsequently filed an affirmation on 28 August 2024 seeking to re-open his case, explaining he could not sell his land to pay off his debt. The judge noted "No action is needed" on this affirmation, but the CALL-1 form for the 5 September 2024 decision only referred to the earlier affirmation seeking withdrawal.

The applicant filed a summons for extension of time to appeal on 23 January 2025, more than four months out of time under Order 53, rule 3(4). That summons was dismissed on 6 March 2025. He then filed the present summons with the Court of Appeal on 31 July 2025, treated as a renewed application for extension of time under Tang Chai On v Tang Sing Ki [2016] 5 HKLRD 104 at §§3 to 8.

The Court held that: (1) the applicant provided no explanation for the four-month delay; (2) absent an excusable delay, he had to show a real prospect of success on the merits (Secretary for Justice v The Hong Kong & Yaumati Ferry Co Ltd [2001] 1 HKC 125); and (3) despite the apparent omission of the 28 August 2024 affirmation by the judge, the applicant's grounds were bare assertions without evidence, failing to refute the Board's findings or show any errors of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality. The general principles governing appeals in non-refoulement cases are set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at §14.

The Court refused to extend time and dismissed the summons.

For practitioners: a litigant who delays without explanation and cannot point to evidence rebutting the decision-maker's findings on severity, plausibility, and state protection will not secure an extension of time, even where the judge below may have overlooked a later affirmation. The four-factor test remains the governing framework, and the real-prospect-of-success threshold applies strictly where the underlying delay is inexcusable.