UY SHERYL ORTIGUERO acting as the next friend of UY TRIXSHIELL CASSIE ORTIGUERO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 100/2026

[2026] HKCFI 3689

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 100 OF 2026

_____________

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

The application

1.  The mother acts as the next friend of the applicant, her daughter in this application.

2.  The mother and the daughter are illegal immigrants by staying in Hong Kong without permission and the mother lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director rejected the mother’s application and she appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). Having considered her evidence, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected her appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision. The mother had given birth to the applicant in Hong Kong.

3.  Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the mother, acting as the next friend of the applicant, filed Form No. 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

4.  By Form CALL-1 dated 6 May 2026 (“the Court’ decision”), the Court dismissed the applicant’s application as there was no realistic prospect of success in her intended application.

5.  The Court’s decision was sent to the applicant’s last known address on 6 May 2026 without being returned by the Post Office. She was deemed to receive the Court’s decision.[1]

6.  The deadline for her to file her notice of appeal is 20 May 2026. She is late for 2 days.

7.  In her summon filed by her mother on 22 May 2026, the applicant asked for extension of time to file the notice of appeal. In the affirmation in support of her application, the mother said she did not receive the Court’s decision.

Discussion

8.  Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A and Order 53, rule 3(3) of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reason, I decide to determine this application on paper without an oral hearing[2].

9.  The Court will consider the factors as set out in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam [2016] 2 HKC 393 at para. 27(3) in considering if extension of time should be extended: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted.

10.  I shall consider the merits of the applicant’s case.

11.  In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, the Court of Appeal held:

“19. The prospect of success of the intended appeal is important: the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued, see Re Rahman Wasif [2019] HKCA 299 at [13]; Re Kpamou Gbotoi Bernard [2019] HKCA 168; and Re Irshad Muhammad [2018] HKCA 864 at [16].”

12.  The applicant’s claim was based upon the mother’s allegation that if refouled, the mother would be pursued by the bank as she was unable to repay her loan from the bank.

13.  The Director rejected her application because her mother’s claim was not substantiated. Acting as the guardian of the applicant, the mother appealed to the Board.

14.  The Board agreed with the Director that the applicant’s claim was unsubstantiated.

15.  The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Board’s finding of the facts or to challenge the Court’s decision.

16.  There is no realistic prospect of success in her intended appeal.

17.  In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for the applicant’s appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss her application.

18.  I shall treat non-compliance with Order 80, rule 2 of the RHC in these proceedings as a mere irregularity without rendering applicant’s application a nullity.