RANASINGHE MUDIYANSELAGE SRIYANI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1009/2020

[2026] HKCFI 4193

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1009 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Introduction

1.  On 12 January 2026, the court sent an order (“Order”) together with the decision (“Decision”) of this court in the prescribed “Form Call-1” ([2026] HKCFI 75) by ordinary post to the 1^st applicant’s last known address.  

2.  In the Decision, the court dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review against the Appeal Board’s decision dated 12 May 2020, dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 23 February 2017, rejecting the 1^st applicant’s non‑refoulement claim.  

3.  Pursuant to Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, an applicant may appeal to the Court of Appeal against an order refusing leave within 14 days after such refusal.  The 14-day period for the applicant to appeal to the order, in this case, expired on 26 January 2026.  After a delay of 3 days, the 1^st applicant issued a summons (“Summons”) dated 29 January 2026 to apply for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Order. 

4.  At the hearing of the Summons this morning, the 1^st applicant appeared in person and made submissions.  

The Law

5.  The applicable guidelines governing the discretion for allowing an extension of time to appeal against the decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review are as follows.  The court shall have regard to: (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the prospects of success of the intended appeal; and (iv) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted: see Re MK HCMP 2609/2016, 10 January 2017; Chu On Fong Winter v The Appeal Panel (Housing) HCMP 982/2017, 20 July 2017;Islam Raja Rais v Director of Immigration HCMP 881/2017, 26 June 2017; Re Gurang Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346; and Nguyen Thi Hong Thuy [2024] HKCA 1172.

Discussion

6.  In the supporting affirmation, the purported reason the 1^st applicant gave for the delay was that she received the court’s documents late.  At the hearing this morning, I asked the 1^st applicant to elaborate more for the said purported reason.  She said that she got the court documents late. She further stated that, according to the person from whom she sought help, the date chopped on the envelope for the court’s documents could show that the documents reached her late.  However, she has forgotten to bring the envelope to the court to confirm what she said. 

7.  In considering the length of delay in this case, I do not regard a 3 day’s delay significant.  However, despite the insignificant delay, the 1^st applicant nonetheless shall still be required to provide an explanation.  However, there is nothing the applicant is able to produce to support her purported reason for the delay.  I do not accept her explanation.  

8.  As for her grounds of appeal against the Decision, the 1^st applicant stated in her supporting affirmation alleging that this court had reached the Decision unfairly because this court at the hearing did not allow her an opportunity to clarify her case and the situation in her home country.  When the court asked the 1^st applicant to elaborate more on this allegation, the 1^st applicant was surprised to learn she had so alleged that in her affirmation.  She told the court that this was not what she wanted to say.  She said because she had asked somebody to help her prepare all the documents, she had no knowledge of what was written in those documents. 

9.  Since the 1^st applicant has disowned the contents of the supporting affirmation in relation to the written allegations she had made against the Decision, this court therefore asked the 1^st applicant to state her proposed grounds of appeal or the complaint she wishes to make against the Decision.  However, instead of putting forward any grounds of her intended appeal, the 1^st applicant simply repeatedly stated that she was not able to return to Sri Lanka because her situation there remained unchanged.  She still had the same fear and she was not able to bring her son back to Sri Lanka. 

Conclusion

10.  These, in my view, are not valid grounds to challenge the Decision.  Hence, I am not satisfied that there is a good prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal.  

11.  For the reasons stated above, I refuse to exercise my discretion to extend the time to the applicant to serve her appeal.  

12.  The Summons is therefore dismissed.