Ambar Sulistiowati v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 2126/2019

[2025] HKCFI 817

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 2126 OF 2019

_____________

_____________

_________________

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

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

3.By Judgment dated 29 November 2024 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed her application for the reason that there was no realistic prospect of success in her intended application.

4.The Court’s decision was sent to the applicant’s last known address on 29 November 2024 without being returned by the Post Office. She was deemed to receive the Court’s decision.[1]

5.The deadline for her to file her notice of appeal is 13 December 2024.

6.In her summon filed on 13 February 2025, the applicant asked for extension of time to file her notice of appeal. In her affirmation in support of her application, the applicant said that she did not understand the court procedure, so she was late.

7.Her application for appeal is late for 2 months.

Discussion

8.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[2].

9.The Court shall 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.

10.I shall consider the merits of her 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’s claim was based upon her allegation that if refouled, the applicant’s parents would not accept her and her son because she gave birth to him out of wedlock. For the same reason, the applicant also feared that she would be ill-treated by people in the Indonesian society and that she might even be stoned to death.

13.The Director rejected her application for the reason that her claim was not substantiated. She appealed to the Board.

14.The Board concluded that the applicant’s claimed fear was self-induced and speculative and it would not meet the requirements of any of the applicable risks.

15.The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s finding of the facts.

16.There is no realistic prospect of success in her intended appeal.

17.In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for her appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss her application.

The applicant was unrepresented.