Pinic Anita Laging v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1238/2025

[2026] HKCFI 3386

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1238 OF 2025

_____________

_____________

_______________

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 Form CALL-1 dated 28 January 2026 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed her application as there is no realistic prospect of success in her intended application.

4.The Court’s decision was sent to the applicant on 28 January 2026 at her last known address without being returned from the Post Office. She is deemed to receive the Court’s decision[1].

5.The time for filing the notice of appeal expired on 11 February 2026[2].

6.By summons filed on 15 April 2026, the applicant applied for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time. She is late for 2 months and 4 days.

7.In her affirmation in support of her application, the applicant did not give any reason for her delay.

Discussion

8.Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A and Order 53, rule 3(3) of the RHC, I decide to determine this application on paper without an oral hearing[3].

9.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. I shall consider the merits of her case.

10.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].”

11.The applicant claimed that if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her creditor because she was unable to repay her loan.

12.The Director rejected her claim because it was not substantiated. She appealed to the Board.

13.Having considered the evidence, the Board dismissed her appeal as it agreed with the Director that her claim was not substantiated.

14.There is no reason for her delay.

15.There is no valid reason from the applicant to challenge the Board’s Decision or this Court’s decision.

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

The applicant was unrepresented.