Paramjit Kaur Acting As the Next of Friend of Kulwant Singh Amritvir v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 2004/2020

[2026] HKCFI 5713

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 2004 OF 2020

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

The application

1.The 1^st named is the mother (“the mother”) of her daughter, the applicant, aged 8 (“the daughter”). The daughter’s claim relies on her parents’ facts in support of her claim. The applications below were taken out by the daughter’s mother acting as her guardian or next friend. I shall call the daughter as the applicant and the applications she made were taken out by her mother as guardian or her next friend.

2.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.

3.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.

4.By Form CALL-1 dated 22 April 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 mother and the applicant at her last known address without being returned from the Post Office. She is deemed to receive the Court’s decision[1].

5.The time for filing the notice of appeal expired on 6 May 2026[2].

6.By summons filed on 26 August 2026, the applicant applied for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time. She is late for 3 months and 20 days.

7.In the mother’s affirmation in support of her application, the mother said that she did not receive the Court’s decision.

Discussion

8.Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A and Order 53, rule 3(3) of the RHC, 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. I shall consider the merits of her case.

10.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].”

11.The applicant claimed that if refouled, she will face the fear of harm because of her parents’ situations and COVID-19.

12.The Director rejected her claim because it was not substantiated. She appealed to the Board.

13.Having considered the evidence, the Board dismissed her appeal as it agreed with the Director that her claim was not substantiated.

14.The reason under paragraph 7 is not valid for her delay.

15.There is no valid reason from the applicant to challenge the Board’s Decision or this Court’s decision.

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

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

The applicant was unrepresented.