Yulianah and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 346/2022 and HCAL 1518/2025

(Consolidated)

[2026] HKCFI 5120

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 346 OF 2022 and NO. 1518 OF 2025 (Consolidated)

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

(Consolidated pursuant to the Order of
Deputy High Court Judge K. W. Lung dated 30 September 2026)

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

The application

1.By virtue of Order 15, rule 4 of the Rules of the High Court, these 2 actions are consolidated because the applicants are mother and daughter. The daughter’s claim relies on the facts of the mother. The mother acts for herself and as next friend of the daughter.

2.This is their joint application.

3.The mother is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission and she lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director rejected her application and she appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). Having considered her evidence, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected her appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision. She had given birth to the daughter.

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

5.By Form CALL-1 dated 24 June 2026 (“the Court’ decision”), the Court dismissed their applications as there was no realistic prospect of success in their intended application. On the same day, the Court’s decision was sent to the applicants’ last known address without being returned by the Post Office. They were deemed to receive the Court’s decision.[1]

6.The time for them to file their notice of appeal expired on 8 July 2026[2].

7.In her summon filed on 4 August 2026, the mother asked for extension of time to file the notice of appeal. They are late for 27 days. In her affirmation in support of her application, she said that she was not aware of the Court’s decision and she did not have the finance for her application.

Discussion

8.Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A and Order 53, rule 3(3) of the RHC, having considered the applicants’ reason, I decide to determine this application on paper without an oral hearing[3].

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 their 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 applicants’ claim was based upon the mother’s allegation that if refouled, they will be harmed or killed by the mother’s husband’s creditor.

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

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

15.The mother did not raise any child specific issues of her daughter before the Court.

16.The applicants have raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s finding of the facts or to challenge the Judgment.

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

18.In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for their appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss their joint 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 daughter’s application a nullity.