Lama Prashna v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1193/2025

[2026] HKCFI 5287

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1193 OF 2025

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

DECISION

_____________

The application

1.The applicant 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.

2.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.

3.By Form CALL-1 dated 11 February 2026 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed her application as there is no realistic prospect of success in her intended application. On the same day, the Court’s decision was sent to the applicant at her last known address without being returned from the Post Office. She is deemed to receive the Court’s decision[1].

4.The time for filing the notice of appeal expired on 25 February 2026[2].

5.By summons filed on 2 April 2026, the applicant applied for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time. She is late for 1 month and 8 days.

6.In her affirmation in support of her application, the applicant has raised 47 paragraphs of grounds to challenge the Board’s Decision, some of which are contradictory to her admissions before the Court.

Discussion

7.Because of the above objections, the Court has fixed a date for her to clarify the reasons. She appeared before the Court on 2 September 2026.

8.Before the Court, she agreed that the Board was not wrong in its decisions, and the Court was not wrong in its decisions. She said that those grounds were made up by her friend, who did not take her instructions to prepare her affirmation for her application.

9.In those circumstances, there is no valid reason from the applicant to challenge the Board’s Decision or this Court’s decision.

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

The applicant was unrepresented.