Idayanti Bt Salimar Mandru v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

HCAL 2285/2020

[2026] HKCFI 3659

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2285 OF 2020

________________________

BETWEEN

________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

1.On 11 February 2026 I refused to extend time to the late application of the Applicant for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in dismissing her appeal regarding her non-refoulement claim upon finding no good reason for her extremely serious delay of more than 3 years in the filing of her leave application, that none of the grounds put forward by her reasonably arguable for her intended challenge, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the process before the Director of Immigration (“Director”) or the Board or in their decisions, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success in her intended application.

2.The Applicant now by a summons issued on 4 March 2026 seeks leave to appeal against that decision out of time, as the 14-day period for her to file her appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A ended on 25 February 2026, and hence she was 7 days late with her intended appeal.

3.In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the Court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (iv) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted: see Re MK HCMP 2609/2016, 10 January 2017; Chu On Fong Winter v The Appeal Panel (Housing) HCMP 982/2017, 20 July 2017; Islam Raja Rais v Director of Immigration HCMP 881/2017, 26 June 2017; Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346.

4.In the Applicant’s case, a delay of 7 days may not be considered as significant, but for which she did not provide any explanation in her affirmation, and that the court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 11 February 2026 to her then reported address without being returned through undelivered post, but given the relative insignificance of the delay, I propose to focus on the prospect of success of her intended appeal.

5.However, the Applicant has failed to put forward any proper or valid draft or proposed grounds of appeal, or any particulars of any error in the decision or why it may be reasonably arguable that the decision was unfair or unreasonable either in her summons or her affirmation, and in the absence of any error in the decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not see any prospect of success in her intended appeal either.

6.In the premises, and for the reasons given, it would be futile to extend time for what appears to be a hopeless appeal. Accordingly, I refuse her application for leave to appeal out of time, and dismiss the Applicant’s summons.

The Applicant was unrepresented