Sri Utami v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 2826/2018

[2026] HKCFI 5715

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 2826 OF 2018

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

The application

1.The applicant is an illegal immigrant by remaining in Hong Kong without permission and she lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (the “Director”). The Director, by his Decision, 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 28 March 2022 (the “Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed her application for the reason that there is no realistic prospect of success in her intended judicial review. On the same day, the Court’s decision was sent to the applicant at her last known address. The letter was returned to the Court on 24 May 2022. The Court re-sent a letter dated 19 July 2022 to the applicant together with Form CALL-1 without return. She is deemed to receive the Court’s decision[1].

4.The time for filing the notice of appeal expired on 3 August 2022[2].

5.The applicant filed a summons on 13 August 2026 for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time. She is late for almost 4 years.

6.In her affirmation in support of her application, she said she did not receive the Court’s decision, which is unreasonable.

Discussion

7.Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reasons, I decide to determine this application without an oral hearing.

8.In AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015, §27 the Court of Appeal held that for extension of time for making the application for leave to apply for judicial review, the Court has to consider (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 the case.

9.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].”

10.The applicant claimed that if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her husband.

11.The Director found that her claim was not substantiated. She appealed to the Board.

12.She refused to answer the Board’s questions despite the Board’s warning that without her clarification, the Board then considered the evidence available to it. Having considered the evidence and the country-of-origin information, the Board found that she would have the state protection; that it was a family dispute without the state’s involvement; that her evidence was not supported by any documents. Finally, the Board affirmed the Director’s Decision as internal relocation was available to the applicant.

13.The delay is serious, and the reason under paragraph 6 is not valid for her delay.

14.The applicant has no valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision. Nor can she point out any error on the part of this Court in the assessment of her application.

15.There is no realistic prospect of success in her intended appeal. I therefore refuse to extend time for her to appeal and I dismiss her application.

The applicant was unrepresented.