Aguinensor Cecile Lumacang and Others v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1063/2020

[2026] HKCFI 2197

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 1063 OF 2020

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

DECISION

_____________

The application

1.The applicants are mother and her children. 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 rejected her appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

3.Her children had also made their claim through their mother and their claim was first refused by the Director; and upon appeal, their appeals were dismissed by the Board.

4.The Board’s Decisions rejecting the mother’s appeal and the children’s appeal are collectively called (“the Board’s Decisions”)

5.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 Decisions.

6.By Form CALL-1 dated 11 February 2026 (“the Court’ decision”), the Court dismissed their application for the reason that there was no realistic prospect of success in their intended application.

7.The Court’s decision was sent to the applicants’ last known address on 11 February 2026 without being returned by the Post Office. They were deemed to receive the Court’s decision.[1]

8.The deadline for them to file their notice of appeal is 25 February 2026.

9.In her summon filed on 10 March 2026, the 1^st applicant asked for extension of time to file the notice of appeal. In her affirmation in support of her application, the mother said she was pregnant, and therefore was not able to file the notice of appeal within time.

10.Her application for extension of time to appeal is late for 13 days.

Discussion

11.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].

12.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.

13.Although she did not have medical evidence in support of her allegation of pregnancy, I shall accept her explanation without further inquiry. However, I shall still have to consider the merit of the case before I exercise my discretion as to whether I should grant the extension of time for their appeal.

14.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].”

15.The applicants’ claim was based upon the 1^st applicant’s allegation that if refouled, they will be harmed or killed by the extortionists in the Philippines.

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

17.The Board agreed with the Director that their claim was unsubstantiated.

18.The Board also had separately consideration of the child specific issues of the children.

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

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

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

22.I shall treat non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the RHC in these proceedings as a mere irregularity without rendering the 2^nd, the 3^rd and the 4^th applicants’ application a nullity.

The applicants were unrepresented