Candra Aprillia v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

HCAL 1144/2021

[2026] HKCFI 3680

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1144 OF 2021

____________

____________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

Background

1.By way of summons filed on 13 May 2026 (“the Summons”), the applicant applies for an extension of time to appeal against my order made on 25 March 2026, which dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of the Torture Claims Appeal Board’s decision dated 25 June 2021.

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 25 March 2026, the last day for the applicant to lodge an appeal was on 8 April 2026. Thus, the time for appealing against my order has expired, and the 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 her supporting affirmation dated 13 May 2026, the applicant explained the delay in appealing by saying that she did not have money to appeal on time. However, at the hearing of the Summons on 22 June 2026, the applicant explained her delay in appealing by saying that she was not aware that she could appeal but she was only informed by her friend in May 2026 that she could appeal.

8.The applicant’s explanations for her delay in appealing are not satisfactory, as the explanation given by her in the affirmation was completely different from the explanation given at the hearing.

9.Moreover, there is no merit of the intended appeal at all. The applicant only mentioned that the judgment reached was unreasonable in the Summons without any particulars, and there was no ground of appeal mentioned in her supporting affirmation at all.

10.At the hearing of the Summons, when I asked the applicant for the grounds of appeal, she only mentioned that she was in the process of divorcing her husband, her case was being handled by the Legal Aid Department and hence she wanted to stay in Hong Kong. However, the applicant admitted that there was nothing wrong with my decision, but she still faced the threat in Indonesia and she wished she could stay in Hong Kong so that her kids could go to school here.

11.What the applicant said in the Summons and at the hearing cannot amount to any valid ground for her intended appeal against my decision, nor for the intended judicial review.

12.For this application to be successful, the 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).

13.The applicant failed to demonstrate any of the above, and hence there is simply no valid ground for the intended appeal.

14.In the circumstances, there is no reasonable explanation for her delay in appealing and there is no reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal. Thus, I am not prepared to grant any extension of time for the applicant to pursue such a hopeless appeal.

Conclusion

15.For reasons aforesaid, the Summons is dismissed.

The applicant appearing in person