Purnamasari Yuli v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1253/2022 and HCAL 1310/2025
(Heard together)

[2026] HKCFI 4322

HCAL 1253/2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1253 OF 2022

____________

BETWEEN

____________

AND

HCAL 1310/2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1310 OF 2025

____________

BETWEEN

____________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

The application

1.The 1^st named applicant is the mother (“the mother”) of the 2^nd named applicant, her daughter (“the daughter”).

2.By HCAL 1253 of 2022, the mother applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision dated 31 August 2022, which dismissed her appeal against the Director’s Decision rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

3.By HCAL 1310 of 2025, the mother acting as the next friend of the daughter, applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision dated 29 May 2025, which dismissed the daughter’s appeal against the Director’s Decision rejecting the daughter’s non-refoulement claim.

4.This Court ordered that both HCAL 1253 of 2022 and HCAL 1310 of 2025 should be heard together. At the hearing on 23 March 2026, the mother and the daughter appeared before the Court.

5.By 2 separate Forms CALL-1, both dated 22 April 2026, this Court dismissed the mother’s and the daughter’s respective applications. These 2 separate Forms CALL-1 are called (“the Court’s decisions”).

6.The mother on behalf of herself and acting as the next friend of the daughter applies for extension of time to appeal the Court’s decisions. The daughter’s claim depends on the facts of her mother’s claim.

7.The Court’s decisions were sent to the applicants’ last known address on 22 April 2026 without being returned by the Post Office. They were deemed to receive the Court’s decision.[1]

8.Time for them to file their notice of appeal expired on 6 May 2026.

9.On behalf of herself and acting as the next friend of the daughter, the mother filed a summon on 13 May 2025 for extension of time to file the notice of appeal, and this is their joint application. In her affirmation in support of her application, the mother said she did not have money to file the appeal and she is late.

10.The applicants are late for 7 days to file their notice of appeal

Discussion

11.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].

12.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.

13.I shall consider the merits of their cases.

14.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].”

15.The applicants’ claim was based upon the mother’s allegation that if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her husband in Indonesia because she was unable to repay his debts in Indonesia and she had extra-marital affairs with another man and had given birth to the daughter in Hong Kong.

16.The Director rejected their application because their claim was not substantiated. They appealed to the Board.

17.The Board had considered the mother’s case and the daughter’s case separately. It had given separate reasons in the Board’s Decisions for dismissing the respective appeals of the mother and the daughter.

18.The Board agreed with the Director that their claims were unsubstantiated.

19.The Board also had separately consideration of the child specific issues of the daughter.

20.The applicants have raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s finding of the facts or to challenge the Court’s decisions.

21.There is no realistic prospect of success in their intended appeal.

22.In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for their appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss their joint application.  

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

The applicants were unrepresented.