Pascua Jenny Lyn Domingo Acting As Next Friend of Pascua Khabib Khan v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 581/2026

[2026] HKCFI 5493

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 581 OF 2026

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

The application

1.This is an application made by the 1^st named, who is the mother (“the mother”) of the applicant, her son (“the son”) who is a minor. She is acting as the next friend of the son.

2.The mother is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission. She gave birth to the son. Acting as next friend for the son, the mother lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director rejected the son’s application and the mother appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). Having considered the mother’s evidence, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

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

4.By Form CALL-1 dated 18 June 2026 (“the Court’ decision”), the Court dismissed the son’s application as there was no realistic prospect of success in his intended application. On the same day, the Court’s decision was sent to the mother’s last known address without being returned by the Post Office. The mother and the son are deemed to receive the Court’s decision[1].

5.The time for the son to file the notice of appeal expired on 2 July 2026[2].

6.In summon filed on 17 July 2026, on behalf of the son, the mother asked for extension of time to file the notice of appeal. She is late for 15 days.

7.In the mother’s affidavit in support of the son’s application, the mother said that she did not have money for the filing of the notice of appeal as she is not allowed to work in Hong Kong.

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[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 the son’s 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 son’s claim was based upon the mother’s claim that if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by the mother’s husband in the Philippines. The mother’s claim was rejected by the Director, and on appeal, dismissed by the Board. She pursued further up to the Court of Final Appeal, which dismissed her application for leave appeal on 12 July 2023.

13.The Director rejected the son’s application because his claim was not substantiated. Acting by the mother, the son appealed to the Board.

14.The Board agreed with the Director that the son’s claim was unsubstantiated.

15.The Board had considered the child specific issues of the son’s claim and found that he would not face any real risk if he returns to the Philippines.

16.On behalf of the son, the mother 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 the son’s intended appeal.

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

The applicant was unrepresented.