Linda Permatasari v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 608/2022

[2026] HKCFI 3948

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 608 OF 2022

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

Introduction

1.This is the Applicant’s application by summons dated 29 April 2026 for an extension of time to appeal the decision of this Court dated 2 April 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 16 April 2026. The delay was 13 days.

5.In her summons and supporting affirmation, the Applicant alleged that she was unaware of the 14-day time limit and she did not receive any correspondence from the court regarding the fact that her leave application was refused. At the hearing, she further told the Court that she was detained at Castle Peak Bay Immigration Centre from 20 March 2026, which is consistent with her address stated in the summons. I am therefore inclined to accept her explanation for the delay.

6.Given my view on the prospects of success of her intended appeal as explained below, however, I consider that this application for an extension of time should still be refused.

Prospects of success of the intended appeal

7.The procedural history against which this application arose is as follows. On 30 June 2022, the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dismissed her claim for non-refoulement protection (the “Board’s Decision”). On 13 July 2022, the Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review. 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.

8.Now the Applicant seeks an extension of time to appeal the Decision. The Applicant’s summons and supporting affirmation barely alleged that the Decision was reached unfairly without allowing her an opportunity to clarify her case and situation in her country. I disagree. As recorded in the Decision, the Applicant requested an oral hearing for her leave application. The hearing took place on 6 February 2026. The Applicant, however, did not appear. In my view, her intended appeal has no prospects of success.

Prejudice to the respondent

9.As I have held, the Applicant’s intended appeal has no prospects 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

10.While I see some merit in the Applicant’s explanation for the delay, in view of 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.