Case Document

100%

HCAL 3519/2019

[2026] HKCFI 1658

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 3519 OF 2019

____________

BETWEEN

	Navarro Garry Rodriguez	1^st Applicant
	Navarro Cheryl Castro	2^nd Applicant
	Navarro Camille Castro	3^rd Applicant
	Navarro Angel Mae Castro by Navarro Cheryl Castro, her next friend	4^th Applicant
	Rodriquez Mary Ann De Guzman	5^th Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

____________

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge Michael WONG in Chambers (Open to Public)

Date of Hearing:	12 March 2026
Date of Handing Down of Decision:	25 March 2026

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

Background

1.By way of summons filed on 2 January 2026 (“the Summons”), the 5^th applicant applies for an extension of time to appeal against my order made on 17 December 2025, which dismissed the 5^th applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 22 November 2019.

2.Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A, stipulates that “Where an application for leave is refused by a judge …, the applicant may appeal against the judge’s order to the Court of Appeal within 14 days after such order”.

3.In Re Li Jing [2015] 2 HKLRD 933, it was held that the time for lodging an appeal against the refusal of granting leave to apply for judicial review started to run from the date of the making of the order, not from the date when the sealed order was issued, nor from the date when the sealed order was mailed, and no account should be taken of the fact that the applicant received the sealed order late (see also Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226).

4.As my order was made on 17 December 2025, the last day for the 5^th applicant to lodge an appeal was on 31 December 2025. The time for appealing against my order has therefore expired, and the 5^th applicant requires leave from this court to appeal out of time.

The applicable law

5.In considering whether to extend time for appealing a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the court will take into account: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted (see Jagg Singh v Torture Claims Appeal Board and another [2020] HKCA 844).

6.However, the crucial consideration in such an application is whether the applicant can show that there is a reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review (see Re Gurung Min Bahadur, supra), and the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued (see Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702).

Discussion

7.In the Summons, the 5^th applicant did not give any reason for her delay in lodging the appeal, but alleged that my decision was not reasonable without giving any further particulars. In her supporting affidavit dated 2 January 2026, the 5^th applicant did not give any reason for her delay in lodging the appeal, nor any ground for the intended appeal.

8.At the hearing of the Summons on 12 March 2026, the 5^th applicant explained that she received the court’s letter about 3 months before the hearing, but when she saw the letter, it was already after the deadline for lodging the appeal. The 5^th applicant, however, could not explain why she received the letter late.

9.When I asked the 5^th applicant to give the grounds for her intended appeal, she simply said that she would like to stay here longer and her family was also living here. What the 5^th applicant said at the hearing could not amount to any valid ground for the intended appeal.

10.For this application to be successful, the 5^th applicant must demonstrate that this court had made errors of law or failed to take account of relevant matters already placed before this court or was otherwise plainly wrong (see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524).

11.The 5^th applicant failed to demonstrate any of the above. The bare allegation made in the Summons that my decision was not reasonable could not amount to any valid ground for the intended appeal either. Hence, there is simply no valid ground for the intended appeal or the intended judicial review.

12.In the circumstances, there is no proper excuse for the 5^th applicant’s delay in lodging the appeal and there is no reasonable prospect of success in the intended judicial review. I am not prepared to grant any extension of time for the 5^th applicant to pursue such a hopeless appeal, even though the delay was not for too long.

Conclusion

13.For reasons aforesaid, the Summons is dismissed.