Case Detail

NGUYEN XUAN HUU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Related cases with same parties

CACV100/2026SINGH NARINDER PAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV10/2022ROBILLOS ADOLFO DE LA CRUZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2021LUU THI VAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2023ALMAS KHAWAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV103/2025COLLINS OBI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV104/2019DHALI JONY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV104/2023VU THI NGOC MY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV105/2021DINH THI VAN 對 TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITON OFFICE
CACV107/2023NGUYEN THI THUY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV107/2025AHMAD AQEEL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1081/2025HOANG VAN BINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV110/2021AYUB MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV11/2023RUPASINGHA ARACHCHIGE SHIROMA THARANGANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV112/2025NONG THI HA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV113/2022SITI MULDIYATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1151/2025ARSHDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2022GALLEGO VALDES AUGUSTO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2024QUIRANTE JACKIELON DE GUZMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV115/2025DINH KHAC KIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
CACV1153/2025MEGA PUSPITA SARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Files (2)

[2025] HKCFI 3829-EN-2025-09-16

NGUYEN XUAN HUU v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HTML content

HCAL 2533/2024

[2025] HKCFI 3829

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 2533 OF 2024

_____________

BETWEEN
	Nguyen Xuan Huu	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested Party

_____________

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers

Date of Decision:

16 September 2025

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

The application

1. The applicant is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission and he lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director rejected his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). He was late in filing the notice of appeal with the Board. The deadline for the applicant to file the notice of appeal was 29 October 2021, but he filed the notice of appeal on 12 July 2024.

2. Having considered his explanation, which the Board rejected, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), refused to extend time for him to file the notice of appeal, in effect, dismissed his appeal.

3. The applicant filed Form No. 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

4. By Judgment dated 1 April 2025 (“the Judgment”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that there is no realistic prospect of success in his intended application.

5. The Judgment was sent to the applicant on 1 April 2025 at his last known address without being returned from the Post Office. He is deemed to receive the Judgment[1].

6. The time for filing the notice of appeal expired on 15 April 2025[2].

7. By summons filed on 12 June 2025, the applicant applied for extension of time to file the notice of appeal against the Court’s decision. He is late for more than 7 weeks.

8. In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant said that the Judgment was unfair because he was not given the chance to clarify the situation in his country.

Discussion

9. Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A and Order 53, rule 3(3) of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reason, I decide to determine this application on paper without an oral hearing[3].

10. The Court will consider the factors as set out in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam [2016] 2 HKC 393 at para. 27(3) in considering if extension of time should be extended: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted. I shall consider the merits of his case.

11. In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike[2019] HKCA 702, the Court of Appeal held:

“ 19. The prospect of success of the intended appeal is important: the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued, see Re Rahman Wasif [2019] HKCA 299 at [13]; Re Kpamou Gbotoi Bernard [2019] HKCA 168; and Re Irshad Muhammad [2018] HKCA 864 at [16].”

12. The applicant claimed that if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by the creditor because he was unable to repay the loan he had borrowed.

13. The Director rejected his claim because it was not substantiated. He appealed to the Board. However, he was late in filing the notice of appeal with the Board. The Board had taken into consideration that he was being detained during the relevant period. The Board was not satisfied that he had provided evidence to show that he had exercised due diligence to file the notice of appeal, but was unable to do so due to circumstances beyond his control. Therefore, the Board refused to exercise its discretion to allow him to file his notice of appeal out of time.

14. He filed Form 86 for leave for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

15. This Court agreed with the Board’s decision and refused to grant leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

16. The applicant has not given any reasons for his delay in filing the notice of appeal for appeal to the Court of Appeal.

17. As to the reason under paragraph 8, the applicant did not request a hearing for his application for leave for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Under Order 53, rule 3(3) of the RHC, the Court may determine the ex parte application without a hearing.

18. The applicant has not raised any valid reason to challenge the Board’s Decision or the Judgment.

19. In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for his appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

(K.W. Lung)
Deputy High Court Judge

The applicant was unrepresented.

[1] Re: Ravinder Singh[2023] HKCA 604, Hon Poon CJHC and Cheung JA, 28 April 2023

“17. The applicant had not filed any notice of change of address for service to notify of any changes in his address. According to the Court’s record, the Court’s decision was sent to the applicant’s last known address on 31 March 2022 by ordinary post. He was deemed to receive the same on the next following day, not being a specified day such as a Saturday or a general holiday. He was therefore deemed to have received the Court’s decision on 1 April 2022. ”

[2] The public holidays are included in the 14-day period as per Order 2(5) of the Rules of the High Court

2. Reckoning periods of time (O. 3, r. 2)
(5) Where, apart from this paragraph, the period in question, being a period of 7 days or less, would include a specified day, that day shall be excluded.

(35 of 1998 s. 5; 18 of 2016 s. 5)

[3] Ogbozor Tochukwu Eugene v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Director of Immigration[2022] HKCA 607, Hon Kwan VP and G Lam JA, 6 May 2022:

“16. … … In respect of his complaint of no oral hearing, the judge is entitled to decide the matter on paper pursuant to the Order 32, rules 11 and 11A and Order 53 rule 3(3) of the Rules of the High Court.”

HCAL 2533/2024

[2025] HKCFI 936

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 2533 OF 2024

_____________

BETWEEN

	Nguyen Xuan Huu	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

_____________

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers

Date of Judgment:

1 April 2025

_____________

JUDGMENT

_____________

THE APPLICATION

1. The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 27 November 2024 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision), which disallowed him to file her notice of appeal out of time.

2. The applicant’s non-refoulement claim was dismissed by the Director of Immigation (“the Director”) by a Notice of Decision dated 12 October 2021 (“the Director’s Decision”). Under section 37ZS of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap.115 (“the Ordinance”), he has 14 days to file the notice of appeal[1]. According to the Board, time for his appeal expired on 29 October 2021, and the applicant filed the notice of appeal on 12 July 2024. [7] The applicant is late for more than two and a half years.

3. The applicant did not request an oral hearing. I shall deal with his application on the papers.

4. Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the proposed respondent is the Board and the Director of Immigration is the interested party.

5. I shall state the brief background of the applicant’s case and discuss the Board’s reasons for its decisions.

The applicant

6. The applicant, aged 49, is a national of Vietnam. He was arrested by police and referred to the Immigration Department on 25 May 2021. He admitted that he entered Hong Kong illegally on 16 May 2021. By written representation, he lodged non-refoulement claim, which the Director rejected for not being substantiated.

7. According to the applicant, he had borrowed two loans from two loan sharks for the business of a restaurant and pigs rearing. He was unable to repay because his businesses failed. The loan sharks had sent people with weapons of knife and iron rod to his premises. As he was unable to repay the loans, they hit him with those weapons, causing injuries to his body, for which he had to receive medical treatment and it took about one month to recover. The loan sharks had warned him that if he was unable to repay the loans, they would kill him. Details of his story are set out in the Notice of Decision dated 12 October 2021 (“the Director’s Decision”).

The Director’s Decision

8. The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

a. risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);
b. risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);
c. risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and
d. risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

9. By way of the Director’s Decision, the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim. The Director found that: (i) the alleged risks of being harmed or killed by the loan sharks if he returns to Vietnam is very low; (ii) state protection will be available; and (iii) internal relocation is viable. [11]-[23]

10. The applicant appealed to the Board. However, he was late in filing the notice of appeal.

The Board’s Decision

11. The Board considered the applicant’s application for late filing of the notice of appeal.

12. The applicant had, in section 5 of the notice of appeal, set out his reasons for being late. He said that he was detained in prison, so he was unable to proactively submit the appeal on time. He does not understand English and he did not know how to fill the notice of appeal.

13. The Board took the view that its discretion to allow late filing is provided under section 37ZT of the Ordinance, which provides, inter alia:

“37ZT.Late filing of notice of appeal
(1) If a notice of appeal is filed after the expiry of the 14-day period referred to in section 37ZS(1), it must include an application for late filing of the notice, which—
(a) must include a statement of the reasons for failing to file the notice within that period; and
(b) must be accompanied by all available evidence relied on in support of the reasons referred to in paragraph (a). (Amended 7 of 2021 s. 19)
(2) The Appeal Board must decide, as a preliminary decision without a hearing, whether the Board allows the late filing of the notice of appeal under subsection (3), and in doing so, the Board may only take account of the statement of reasons stated in the application for late filing of the notice of appeal and the evidence relied on in support of the reasons. (Amended 7 of 2021 s. 19)
(3) The Appeal Board may allow the late filing of the notice of appeal if the person filing the notice provides sufficient evidence in writing to satisfy the Board that the person—
(a) had exercised all due diligence to file the notice within the period specified in section 37ZS(1); but
(b) failed to file the notice within the period because of circumstances beyond the person’s control. (Replaced 7 of 2021 s. 19)”

14. The Board did not accept the applicant’s explanation for being late in filing the notice of appeal for reasons as follows:

“8. … … The Decision was given to the legal representative appointed by the Duty Lawyer Services (“DLS”) which received the same on behalf of the Appellant. There is no evidence to show that there is any delay on the part of the Director in sending the Decision to the Appellant. The appellant did not claim that he did not receive the Decision.”

15. The Board further held that even if the applicant was being detained, he did not ask for assistance for filing the notice of appeal. He has failed to submit any evidence in support to satisfy the Board that he had exercised due diligence to file the notice of appeal within the prescribed period or he had failed to do so under circumstances beyond his control.[9] The Board held that it had no basis on which to exercise any statutory discretion to extend the time limit. [10]

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

16. The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 18 December 2024 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

17. In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant did not raise any specific reasons to challenge the Board’s Decision.

DISCUSSION

18. The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration[2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).

19. The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

20. The Court takes the view that the Board had appropriately applied the relevant law to the applicant’s application for filing the notice of appeal out of time.

21. The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision.

22. The applicant fails to show that he has any realistic prospect of success in his proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

23. I refuse to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

	(K.W. Lung)
	Deputy High Court Judge

The applicant was unrepresented.

[1] 37ZS. Notice of appeal

(1) A person who wishes to appeal against a decision referred to in section 37ZR must file with the Appeal Board a notice of appeal within 14 days after notice of the decision is given to the person unless late filing of the notice is allowed by the Board under section 37ZT(3).