TAMMAWONG PAKAMON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 3712/2019

[2025] HKCFI 4513

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 3712 OF 2019

____________

____________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1.  By summons (“the Summons”) filed on 8 May 2025, the Applicant seeks to appeal out of time against this Court’s order dated 25 March 2025 (“the Decision”), by which her application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Petition Office dated 29 November 2019, which confirmed the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 18 June 2019 rejecting her non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds under the USM, was dismissed.

2.  Under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, where an application for leave to apply for judicial review is refused by a judge, the applicant may appeal against the judge’s order to the Court of Appeal within 14 days after such order. The Applicant is plainly out of time, having failed to lodge the appeal within the prescribed period, with a delay of 30 days.

3.  In considering whether to extend time for appealing a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the Court will take into account: (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (iv) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted (see Jagg Singh and Torture Claims Appeal Board/non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office CAMP 64/2020 [2020] HKCA 844 at §10).

4.  At the outset, it must be observed that the delay is not insubstantial. The Applicant was late by one month and has not advanced any explanation, let alone a satisfactory one, for the delay.

5.  Turning to the merits, in the present case, as set out in the Decision, the Applicant was unable to identify any specific grounds in support of her intended application for judicial review. She merely stated that she wished to apply for judicial review and exhibited a copy of the Board’s Decision, without providing any facts or materials of substance. It is well-established that in the absence of valid public law grounds, the Court would not intervene by way of judicial review. The Court’s role is not to provide an additional avenue of appeal.

6.  Having reviewed all the evidence adduced by the Applicant and applying the relevant legal principles, the Board concluded that the Applicant had failed to establish her claim for non-refoulement protection. The Board was entitled to make that evaluation on the basis of the material before it. Upon rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, I was unable to discern, and the Applicant failed to demonstrate, any error of law, procedural unfairness, or omission by the Board in applying the requisite standard of fairness. Accordingly, I was not satisfied that the proposed judicial review was reasonably arguable with any realistic prospect of success.

7.  The Applicant has failed to show any proper or valid grounds of appeal against such decision. A bare assertion of disagreement with the outcome, without more, is insufficient. It would be futile to extend time for what is, in essence, a hopeless appeal (see Re MK HCMP 2609/2016, 10 January 2017, at §§7-8; Chu On Fong Winter v The Appeal Panel (Housing) HCMP 982/2017, 20 July 2017, at §§10-11; Islam Raja Rais v Director of Immigration HCMP 881/2017, 26 June 2017, at §§10-11).

8.  Finally, to grant an extension of time in the present circumstances would undermine the proper administration of the refoulement process and result in further undue delay.

9.  For these reasons, I refuse to grant the Applicant an extension of time to appeal and order that the Summons be dismissed.