|
HCAL 1253/2022 and HCAL 1310/2025
(Heard together)
[2026] HKCFI 4322
HCAL 1253/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
NO 1253 OF 2022
____________
BETWEEN
| |
Purnamasari Yuli |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board / |
Putative |
| |
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
Director of Immigration |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
____________
AND
HCAL 1310/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
NO 1310 OF 2025
____________
BETWEEN
| |
Purnamasari Yuli acting as the next friend of Yuli Purnamasari Seina Yukavi Gashen |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board / |
Putative |
| |
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
Director of Immigration |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
____________
| Before: |
Deputy High Court Judge K. W. Lung in Chambers |
| Date of Decision: |
12 August 2026 |
______________
D E C I S I O N
______________
The application
1. The 1st named applicant is the mother (“the mother”) of the 2nd named applicant, her daughter (“the daughter”).
2. By HCAL 1253 of 2022, the mother applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision dated 31 August 2022, which dismissed her appeal against the Director’s Decision rejecting her non-refoulement claim.
3. By HCAL 1310 of 2025, the mother acting as the next friend of the daughter, applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision dated 29 May 2025, which dismissed the daughter’s appeal against the Director’s Decision rejecting the daughter’s non-refoulement claim.
4. This Court ordered that both HCAL 1253 of 2022 and HCAL 1310 of 2025 should be heard together. At the hearing on 23 March 2026, the mother and the daughter appeared before the Court.
5. By 2 separate Forms CALL-1, both dated 22 April 2026, this Court dismissed the mother’s and the daughter’s respective applications. These 2 separate Forms CALL-1 are called (“the Court’s decisions”).
6. The mother on behalf of herself and acting as the next friend of the daughter applies for extension of time to appeal the Court’s decisions. The daughter’s claim depends on the facts of her mother’s claim.
7. The Court’s decisions were sent to the applicants’ last known address on 22 April 2026 without being returned by the Post Office. They were deemed to receive the Court’s decision.[1]
8. Time for them to file their notice of appeal expired on 6 May 2026.
9. On behalf of herself and acting as the next friend of the daughter, the mother filed a summon on 13 May 2025 for extension of time to file the notice of appeal, and this is their joint application. In her affirmation in support of her application, the mother said she did not have money to file the appeal and she is late.
10. The applicants are late for 7 days to file their notice of appeal
Discussion
11. 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[2].
12. 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.
13. I shall consider the merits of their cases.
14. 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].”
15. The applicants’ claim was based upon the mother’s allegation that if refouled, she will be harmed or killed by her husband in Indonesia because she was unable to repay his debts in Indonesia and she had extra-marital affairs with another man and had given birth to the daughter in Hong Kong.
16. The Director rejected their application because their claim was not substantiated. They appealed to the Board.
17. The Board had considered the mother’s case and the daughter’s case separately. It had given separate reasons in the Board’s Decisions for dismissing the respective appeals of the mother and the daughter.
18. The Board agreed with the Director that their claims were unsubstantiated.
19. The Board also had separately consideration of the child specific issues of the daughter.
20. The applicants have raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s finding of the facts or to challenge the Court’s decisions.
21. There is no realistic prospect of success in their intended appeal.
22. In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for their appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss their joint application.
23. I shall treat non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the RHC in these proceedings as a mere irregularity without rendering the daughter’s application a nullity.
| |
( K.W. Lung )
Deputy High Court Judge
|
The applicants were unrepresented.
[1] Re: Ravinder Singh [2023] HKCA 604, Hon Poon CJHC and Cheung JA, 28 April 2023
“17. … According to the Court’s record, the Court’s decision was sent to the applicant’s last known address on 31 March 2022 by ordinary post. He was deemed to receive the same on the next following day, not being a specified day such as a Saturday or a general holiday. …”
[2] Ogbozor Tochukwu Eugene v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Director of Immigration [2022] HKCA 607, Hon Kwan VP and G Lam JA, 6 May 2022:
“16. … … In respect of his complaint of no oral hearing, the judge is entitled to decide the matter on paper pursuant to the Order 32, rules 11 and 11A and Order 53 rule 3(3) of the Rules of the High Court.”
|