Compay Irene Navarro and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 2455/2019 and HCAL 550/2023

(Heard together)

[2024] HKCFI 3348

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 2455 OF 2019

_____________

_____________

AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 550 OF 2023

_____________

_____________

(Heard Together)

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

The application

1.The 1^st applicant is the mother and the guardian ad litem of the 2^nd applicant, her daughter, aged 13, the 3^rd applicant, her daughter, aged 4 and the 4^th applicant, her son, aged 4 (“the children”).

2.The mother and the children lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director rejected their application and they appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). Having considered the evidence, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected their appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

3.Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the applicants filed Form No. 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

4.By Order dated 7 October 2024 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed their application for the reason that there was no realistic prospect of success in their intended application.

5.The Court’s decision was sent to the applicants on 7 October 2024 without being returned by the Post Office. They were deemed to receive the Court’s decision[1].

6.The deadline for them to file their notice of appeal is 21 October 2024[2].

7.In their summons filed on 22 October 2024, the applicants asked for extension of time to file their notice of appeal. In the mother’s affirmation in support of their application, the mother said she said:

“I’m late to appeal on time because my son was sick. I’m asking for extension of time.”

8.Their application for appeal is late for 1 day only.

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.Since the delay is only 1 day and the mother has given the reason that her child was sick, though there is no medical evidence in support of the mother’s assertion, I shall give the benefit of the doubt and extend time for the applicants to file the notice of appeal within 7 days from the date of this Order.

The applicants were unrepresented.