RE FRISILIA

CAMP 86/2026, [2026] HKCA 824

On Appeal From [2025] HKCFI 6265

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 86 OF 2026

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 179 OF 2021)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge (Non-refoulment Claims)  Vincent Lung (“the Judge”)  dated 6 March 2026 ([2026] HKCFI 880)  (“the EOT Decision”), refusing to grant extension of time to the applicant to appeal against the Judge’s earlier decision dated 18 December 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 6265)  (“the Leave Decision”).

2.  By the Leave Decision, the Judge dismissed her application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Application”)  against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”)  dated 22 December 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”), whereby the Board dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  dated 26 May 2020, refusing her non-refoulement claim.

3.  The applicant’s background, the basis of her claim and arguments advanced before the Board as well as the Board’s reasons for rejecting her appeal are all set out in the Board’s Decision: see [4] of the Leave Decision.  The Judge has set out in detail his reasons respectively for refusing the Leave Application and the extension of time to appeal application: see [8] - [12] of the Leave Decision and [1] - [4] of the EOT Decision.  We will not repeat those details herein.

4.  By a Summons filed on 17 March 2026 (“the Summons”), the applicant sought to appeal against the EOT Decision but did not provide any intended ground of appeal.  On the same day, the applicant also filed a supporting affirmation stating:

“I don’t want go Back Indonesia, Because my Life Very Danger, Because of my Loan Sharks Because I Can’t Pay The Debt. I Don’t Have Money To Pay The Debt. Save my Life, Please Let me Live in Hong Kong, Because only in Hong Kong I Feel Safety. So Apologise I Hope You Consider my Life attach exhibit A.”[1] (sic)

5.  Contrary to the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 17 March 2026, the applicant did not file any written submissions in support of her application.

6.  By a Request for Dismissal of Appeal filed on 19 March 2026, the applicant requested for dismissal of her appeal.  On the basis of her said request, we dismiss the Summons dated 17 March 2026.  In any event, her application also fails for lack of merit, which we will explain further below.

Discussion

7.  Following the approach this court has adopted in Tang Chai On v Tang Sing Ki [2016] 5 HKLRD 104 at [3] - [8], we will treat the present application as a renewed application for extension of time to appeal against the Leave Decision.

8.  Having considered the documents, we are of the view that it is appropriate to determine this application on paper without a hearing pursuant to Order 59, rule 14A of the Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A)  (“the RHC”).

9.  Under Order 53, rule 3(4)  of the RHC, the applicant may appeal against the Leave Decision to the Court of Appeal within 14 days of the order.  In deciding whether to extend time to appeal, the court will take into account the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and the degree of prejudice to the other party if an extension of time is granted.

10.  The prospect of success of an intended appeal is important.  The court will not grant an extension of time to appeal for a hopeless appeal to be pursued: Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, at [19].

11.  As noted by the Judge at [2] of the EOT Decision, the applicant first applied for extension of time to appeal before the Judge by way of a summons filed on 5 January 2026.  By then, she was late for one day in taking out her application: [2] of the EOT Decision.  As the delay was not substantial, we will focus on the merits of her intended appeal.

12.  The Court of Appeal’s general approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement cases is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at [14].  In particular, in an appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review in non-refoulement cases, the Court of Appeal would only examine the decision of the judge in light of the grounds advanced by the applicant.  If no viable ground is put forward to reverse the judge’s decision, the appeal should be dismissed.  The Court of Appeal’s role is not to examine the Board’s decision afresh as if it is a fresh application for judicial review (see Nupur Mst at [14(6)]).

13.  In our view, her intended appeal has no substance.  At the outset, her assertions are all general, vague and bare which are not proper grounds of appeal.  General assertions of her fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  She also fails to identify any error with specific particulars against the Leave Decision.  In the absence of demonstrating any error in the Leave Decision, the applicant’s assertions are plainly not valid grounds of appeal.  We see no basis to disturb the Leave Decision.

14.  As there is no prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal, it is futile to grant the applicant any extension of time to appeal against the Leave Decision.

15.  The Summons is hereby dismissed.