LE VAN TRUYEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

LE VAN TRUYEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Six‑day delay lacked valid explanation; the intended appeal had no realistic prospect given the Board and Director found the non‑refoulement claim unsubstantiated; applying established factors, extension of time was refused and the application dismissed.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 2650
Parties
Applicant: Le Van Truyen; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 May 2026
Case Number
HCAL671/2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application (leave to Apply) / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal (out of Time by 6 Days)
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Non Refoulement, Credibility Assessment, Procedure — Deemed Service
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Extension of Time Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Non Refoulement Credibility Assessment +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Le Van Truyen

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application (leave to Apply) / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal (out of Time by 6 Days)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time for filing an appeal out of time
  2. 2 Whether the intended appeal has a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether applicant provided valid reasons for delay

Ratio Decidendi

Six‑day delay lacked valid explanation; the intended appeal had no realistic prospect given the Board and Director found the non‑refoulement claim unsubstantiated; applying established factors, extension of time was refused and the application dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused; application dismissed.

Orders

  • Extension of time refused
  • Application dismissed