Dede Setiyawati v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 388/2022

[2026] HKCFI 3943

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 388 OF 2022

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

Introduction

1.This is the Applicant’s application by summons dated 14 April 2026 for an extension of time to appeal the decision of this Court dated 30 March 2026 (the “Decision”) refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review. A hearing was conducted on 6 July 2026. The Applicant appeared in person.

2.In Jagg Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office[1], the Court of Appeal held, at [10], that in considering whether to extend time for appealing against 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 prospects of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted.

Length of the delay and reasons for delay

3.Under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, where an application for leave to apply for judicial review 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.

4.The time to appeal, therefore, expired on 13 April 2026. The delay was 1 day, which is relatively short.

5.In her summons and supporting affirmation, the Applicant alleged that she could not arrange the money, and consequently failed to submit her application in time. I do not accept the explanation, as she did not have to pay any filing fee for appealing. See Manangan Irene Manglicmot v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office [2026] HKCFI 2316, at [4].

Prospects of success of the intended appeal

6.The procedural history against which this application arose is as follows. On 4 November 2021, the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dismissed her claim for non-refoulement protection (the “Board’s Decision”). On 25 May 2022, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review out of time. In refusing her leave application, this Court held, inter alia, that the Board had carefully considered the Applicant’s evidence. The Board’s Decision was comprehensive with adequate reasons. This Court did not find any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board’s Decision and was not satisfied the Applicant’s intended challenge of the same was reasonably arguable with realistic prospects of success. As a result, the Applicant’s leave application was refused.

7.Now the Applicant seeks an extension of time to appeal the Decision. The Applicant’s summons and supporting affirmation, however, do not identify any proper grounds of appeal. She is not suggesting anything wrong, whether of fact or of law, in the Decision. She is only repeating the case (i.e. her life is in danger because her husband will kill her) that was rejected by the Board. Her intended appeal has no prospects of success.

Prejudice to the respondent

8.As I have held, the Applicant’s intended appeal has no prospect of success. To allow such a challenge to proceed when it is already out of time would only drain the intended respondent’s time and resources unnecessarily and cause prejudice.

Conclusion

9.While the delay is relatively short, in view of the absence of any proper explanation for the delay, the lack of prospects of success in the intended appeal and the prejudice to the intended respondent, the application for an extension of time to appeal is refused.

The applicant was unrepresented and appeared in person.