YARANON MA SHEILA ELPA AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 166/2025, [2026] HKCA 1441

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 742

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 166 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2234 OF 2019)

____________________

BETWEEN

____________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Anthony Chan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1.  On 10 March 2026, this Court (Anthony Chan JA and Wilson Chan J) handed down a Judgment ([2026] HKCA 128) (“Judgment”) dismissing the Applicants’ appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung dated 18 March 2025 refusing to grant leave to the Applicants to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review concerned the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dismissing the Applicants’ appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting their non-refoulement claims.

2.  The facts and issues in the Applicants’ appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, were set out in the Judgment. We will not repeat them here.

3.  On 10 April 2026, the Applicants filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) and an affidavit by which she seeks leave to apply for an extension of time for filing the Notice of Motion (“Affidavit”).

4.  Pursuant to s.24(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“Ordinance”), the Notice of Motion should have been filed within 28 days from the date of the Judgment, i.e., 7 April 2026.

5.  Good grounds have to be shown by the applicant before the court may grant an extension of time pursuant to s.24(5) of the Ordinance: see Re Rajaram Razeena [2019] HKCA 959 at [1.4].

6.  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicants stated that :

“IM PLEADING TO THE COURT TO GIVE ME CHANCE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DATED 13 OF MARCH 2026 BY HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ANTHONY CHAN, JUSTICE OF APPEAL AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE WILSON CHAN IN COURT. THE JUDGMENT REACHED UNREASONABLE.”

7.  The Applicants have failed to lodge any submissions for the present application in breach of the Directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 10 April 2026. There is no reason for us to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of the present type on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing in accordance with para.3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

8.  The matters stated in the Notice of Motion do not constitute any proper ground for granting leave to appeal to the CFA. The Applicants have not raised any question of great general or public importance for the CFA to consider, as required by s.22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.

9.  We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under s.22(1)(b).

10.  The Notice of Motion did not identify any error in the Judgment. There is no merit in this application.

11.  The Affidavit merely stated that an extension of time is needed for the intended appeal. The 1^st Applicant has not offered any reason to explain the delay in filing the Notice of Motion.

12.  For these reasons, we refuse to grant an extension of time and dismiss the Notice of Motion with no order as to costs.