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

HCAL 244/2023

[2025] HKCFI 2973

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 244 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Introduction

1.  This is the Applicants’ application by summons filed on 19 June 2025 for extension of time to appeal the order of this Court dated 3 June 2025 (the “Order”)  refusing her leave to apply for judicial review (the “leave application”)  of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office.

Discussion

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 Application is one day out of time.  In Jagg Singh and Torture Claims Appeal Board/non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office[1], the Court of Appeal held that in considering whether to extend time for appealing a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the court will take into account: (1)  the length of delay; (2)  the reasons for the delay; (3)  the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted.  If the delay is not substantial, it would be readily condoned if there is some credible explanation and an arguable ground of appeal.  If the first three factors are resolved against granting leave, there is no need to consider prejudice to the respondent.

3.  The Applicant admitted having received the Order and Form CALL-1 on 3 June 2025.  She is only one day late in appealing.  Her explanation for the delay as advanced by her in her summons is that she could not arrange money for the appeal.  In fact, she need not pay any fee for filing an appeal.  She had had no reasonable or valid explanation for the delay. However, this short delay is one which this Court would most readily condone, anyway. 

4.  The grounds of her intended appeal as stated in her supporting affirmation are:

“I don’t want go back Indonesia, because my life and my kids life very danger, because of my loan sharks will kill me, because I can’t pay the debt. I don’t have money to pay the debt. Please save my life and my kids life, please give me and my kids live in Hong Kong because only in Hong Kong I feel savety.”

5.  In essence, these grounds, if they could be so called, are challenges of the Board’s finding of fact that there could not possibly be any substantial grounds for finding that the Applicant will face a real risk of ill-treatment if refouled to Indonesia.  The Applicant’s claim is founded on her fear of harm from her husband’s creditor because her husband was unable to repay a debt he owed to the creditor.  The Board’s findings are summarised in paragraphs 14 to 18 of the Form CALL-1.  In brief, the Board found the creditor had no intention to cause the Applicant serious harm or to kill her and the ill-treatment she suffered did not attain the minimum level of severity.  On the basis of authoritative and credible country of origin information, the Board found reasonable state protection is available and that she could avoid any possible risk of harm by internal relocation.  All these are finding of fact which the Board was entitled to make on the evidence and which the Court will not interfere save for errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision.  Having rigorously scrutinised the decision, this Court could not finding any such vitiating elements.  In answer to the Court’s question, the Applicant confirmed that she had no complaint about errors of law, unfairness or irrationality.  She has also not raised any such complaints in the grounds of her intended appeal.  She has not identified any errors in the Court’s decision.  Her grounds of intended appeal are wholly unarguable and have no prospect of success. 

6.  Despite the Court is ready to condone the short delay, the Court has no discretion to grant her extension of time to appeal due to the absence of any prospect of success in her intended appeal.  Accordingly, her application for extension of time to appeal is refused.