Akhtar Musammat Sajna Acting As the Next Friend of Akhtar Musammat Fatima Haque Ishrath v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 2448 /2025

[2026] HKCFI 3688

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 2448 OF 2025

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

DECISION

_____________

The application

1.The 1^st named is the mother, acting as the next friend of the applicant, her daughter who is a minor in this application.

2.The mother is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission. Acting as the next friend of the applicant, she lodged a non-refoulement claim for the applicant. The Director rejected the application and the applicant appealed to the Board. By Decision dated 14 August 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”), the Board dismissed her appeal.

3.Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the applicant, acted by the mother as the next friend, filed Form No. 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

4.By Form CALL-1 dated 15 April 2026 (“the Court’ decision”), the Court dismissed her application as there was no realistic prospect of success in her intended application.

5.The Court’s decision was sent to the applicant’s last known address on 15 April 2026 without being returned by the Post Office. She was deemed to receive the Court’s decision.[1]

6.The deadline for the applicant to file her notice of appeal is 29 April 2026. She is late for 13 days.

7.In the summon filed on 12 May 2026, the applicant asked for extension of time to file the notice of appeal. In the mother’s affirmation in support of her application, she said she would reject the Court’s decision.

Discussion

8.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].

9.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.

10.I shall consider the merits of the case.

11.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].”

12.The applicant’s claim was based upon the mother’s allegation that if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her paternal uncle and cousin because she had given birth to her child out of wedlock. As the applicant is her daughter, she will be subjected to the same risks.

13.The Director rejected the application because her claim was not substantiated. She appealed to the Board.

14.The Board agreed with the Director that her claim was unsubstantiated.

15.The Board also had separately consideration of the child specific issues of the applicant.

16.The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s finding of the facts or to challenge the Court’s decision.

17.There is no realistic prospect of success in her intended appeal.

18.In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for her to appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss her application.

19.I shall treat non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the RHC in these proceedings as a mere irregularity without rendering the applicant’s application a nullity.

The applicant was unrepresented.