Swalehe Asia Abubakari v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 164/2025, [2026] HKCA 1861

On Appeal from [2025] HKCFI 1806

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 164 OF 2025

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2514 OF 2019)

________________________

________________

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

Hon Coleman JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

A. Introduction

1.The Applicant is an Indonesian who made a non-refoulement claim, which was rejected by the Director of Immigration.  Subsequently, the Applicant’s appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) was also dismissed.

2.The Applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the Board’s Decision.  Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung dismissed the application by his Decision dated 25 February 2025 (“CFI Decision”), on the ground that the Applicant’s intended challenge was not reasonably arguable with any realistic prospect of success.

3.The Applicant subsequently applied for an extension of time to appeal against the CFI Decision.  The Deputy Judge dealt with the application on paper without an oral hearing, and noted that the Applicant had given no explanation for the nine-day delay.  He dismissed the application on 15 May 2025, [2025] HKCFI 1806, on the basis that, in addition to the absence of any explanation for her delay, there was no valid reason put forward by the Applicant to challenge the CFI Decision.

4.On 21 August 2025, the Applicant, acting in person, renewed her application to this Court for an extension of time to appeal against the CFI Decision.  Pursuant to directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the Applicant had until 4 September 2025 to lodge written submissions, but she lodged written submissions only on 2 October 2025.  The Registrar’s directions also included that the Court of Appeal would decide whether to determine the application on paper, or fix an oral hearing.  If the determination was to be on paper, the Court would proceed to do so without further notice.

5.We are satisfied that it is appropriate to determine the application on paper.  This is our Decision.

B.  No Merit

6.The Applicant’s summons renewing the application for an extension of time to appeal merely states that she wants to appeal against the CFI Decision.  The Applicant’s affirmation filed at the same time merely stated that she was late to appeal and requested an extension of time.

7.As already stated, the Applicant filed written submissions late.  We have nevertheless taken them into consideration.  However, the submissions address only why the Applicant is aggrieved by the decisions of the Director and the Board, and why she says those decisions were unfair or irrational.  The written submissions do not address where the Deputy Judge might have fallen into error in the CFI Decision.

8.Therefore, there still remains the absence of any proposed grounds of appeal against the CFI Decision.

C.  Result

9.In the circumstances, we dismiss the Applicant’s application, with no order as to costs.

The applicant, acting in person