Sonbise Emy Rose Tamparong and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 3326/2019

[2026] HKCFI 3543

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 3326 OF 2019

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

The application

1.The applicants are mother (“the mother”) and son (“the son”). This is their joint application. The mother is acting as the next friend of the son.

2.The mother 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. She had given birth to the son and lodged a non-refoulement claim for him as well. The Director refused his claim. The mother and the son appealed to the Board. The Board dismissed their appeals by the Board’s Decision dated 18 October 2019 (“the Board’s Decision”).

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

4.By Form CALL-1 dated 14 January 2026 (“the Court’ decision”), the Court dismissed their application as 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 14 January 2026 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 28 January 2026.

7.In her summon filed on 18 May 2026, the mother asked for extension of time to file the notice of appeal. In her affirmation in support of her application, she said that she was late, but she did not give any explanation for her delay.

8.Her application for extension of time to appeal is late for 3 months and 20 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 mother’s allegation that if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by some strangers who are against her work at charitable organization for saving children.

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

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

16.The Board had not separately considered the child-specific issues for the son. The Court had made enquiries with the mother, who did not raise any potential non-refoulement grounds relating to her son.

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.