RE AMBAR SULISTIOWATI

CAMP 71/2025, [2026] HKCA 521

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 3010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 71 OF 2025

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2126 OF 2019)

_____________________________________

_____________________________________

__________________

JUDGMENT

__________________

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

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung dated 27 March 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 817) (‘the EOT Decision’), refusing to grant extension of time to the applicant to appeal against the Judge’s earlier decision dated 29 November 2024 ([2024] HKCFI 3010) (‘the Leave Decision’).

2.  By the Leave Decision, the Judge dismissed her application for leave to apply for judicial review (‘the Leave Application’) against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (‘the Board’) dated 26 April 2019 (‘the Board’s Decision’), whereby the Board dismissed her appeal/petition against the decision of the Director of Immigration (‘the Director’) dated 12 December 2017, refusing her non‑refoulement claim other than the risk of torture[1].

3.  The applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting her appeal/petition are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [4]‑[8], [11]‑[13] of the Leave Decision[2]. The Judge has set out the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of the Leave Application and his reasons for refusing the Leave Application: see [14]‑[22] of the Leave Decision. The Judge has also set out in detail his reasons for refusing the extension of time to appeal application taken out by the applicant: see [1]‑[7], [15]‑[17] of the EOT Decision. We will not repeat those details herein.

4.  By the Summons filed on 9 April 2025, the applicant sought to appeal against the EOT Decision but did not provide any ground of the intended appeal. On the same day, the applicant also filed a supporting affirmation, and it contained bare allegations such as the High Court did not give her ‘opportunity’, or that it did not hear her why she was late, and that the situation was totally unfair. The applicant further lodged written submissions on 23 April 2025. In those submissions, she stated that the Court did not allow her to submit her case in her own language and she had to submit everything in English. She complained that there was lack of high standard of fairness. She complained that there is procedural unfairness for the authorities dispose non‑refoulement cases as quick as possible. She complained that if she did not understand the decision it was hard for her to appeal. She complained that she was not provided with legal and language assistance. She complained that the refusal of her appeal was unreasonable and irrational in public law sense.

5.  Having considered the documents, we are of the view that it is appropriate to determine this application on paper without a hearing pursuant to Order 59, rule 14A of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A) (‘the RHC’).

I.  Discussion

6.  Following the approach this Court has adopted in Tang Chai On v Tang Sing Ki [2016] 5 HKLRD 104 at [3]‑[8], we will treat the present application as a renewed application for extension of time to appeal against the Leave Decision.

7.  Under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the RHC, the applicant may appeal against the Leave Decision to the Court of Appeal within 14 days of the order. In deciding whether to extend time to appeal, the Court will take into account the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and the degree of prejudice to the other party if an extension of time is granted.

8.  The prospect of success of an intended appeal is important. The Court will not grant an extension of time to appeal for a hopeless appeal to be pursued: Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, at [19].

9.  The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14]. In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non‑refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant. If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed. The Court of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst at [14(6)]).

10.  As noted by the Judge at [1]-[7] of the EOT Decision, the applicant was deemed to have received the Court’s decision when it was sent to her last known address without being returned undelivered. There is no valid reason to explain her delay of around two months.

11.  More importantly, her intended appeal has no substance. At the outset, her assertions are all general, vague and bare which are not proper grounds of appeal. General assertions of her fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6]. Her complaints were also mainly directed at the Board’s Decision, and she failed to identify any error with specific particulars against the Leave Decision. The Judge had considered those submissions and rejected the same with reasons at [16]‑[22] of the Leave Decision. In the absence of demonstrating any error in the Leave Decision, the applicant’s assertions are plainly not valid grounds of appeal. We see no basis to disturb the Leave Decision.

12.  As to the applicant’s written submissions, it is trite law that high standards of fairness does not mean that the applicant is entitled to legal or language assistance at all times of the legal proceedings: Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14 at [18]; Re Karamjit Singh [2018] HKCA 460 at [16]. As for the other public law grounds mentioned, they are all bare assertions without any specific elaboration as to how those submissions apply to the applicant’s case.

13.  Accordingly, there is no prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal. It is thus futile to grant the applicant any extension of time to appeal against the Leave Decision.

14.  The reapplication for extension of time to appeal is refused, and the applicant’s summons taken out on 9 April 2025 is dismissed.