Nilasari Meristika and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1202/2020

[2026] HKCFI 1834

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 1202 OF 2020

_____________

________________________

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

The application

1.The applicants are mother and son. This is their joint application.

2.The 1^st 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. She had given birth to the 2^nd applicant.

3.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.

4.By Judgment dated 23 December 2025 (“the Court’s decsion”), 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’ last known address on 23 December 2025 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 6 January 2026

7.In her summon filed on 5 February 2025, the 1^st applicant asked for extension of time to file the notice of appeal. In her affidavit in support of her application, the 1^st applicant said she was not financially stable.

8.Her application for extension of time to appeal is late for 30 days.

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[2].

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.

11.I shall consider the merits of their case.

12.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].”

13.The applicants’ claim was based upon the 1^st applicant’s allegation that if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her parents because of her religious conversion and giving birth to her son out of wedlock.

14.The Director rejected their application for the reason that their claim was not substantiated. They appealed to the Board.

15.The Board concluded that the applicants’ claimed fear was unsubstantiated.

16.The Board also had separately consideration of the child specific issue of the 2^nd applicant, who is a minor.

17.The applicants have raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s finding of the facts or to challenge the Judgment.

18.There is no realistic prospect of success in their intended appeal.

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

20.I shall treat non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the RHC in these proceedings as a mere irregularity without rendering the son’s application a nullity.

The applicants were unrepresented.