YUTRAGO MA. SOCORRO VILLANUEVA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 473/2020

[2026] HKCFI 2831

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 473 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Introduction

1.  By notice of an application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”)  in the prescribed form, the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board. 

2.  In the decision dated 23 December 2025 (“Decision”), I dismissed the Leave Application.  The Decision together with the order of the court (“Order”)  were sent to the applicant on the same date to her updated address (“Confirmed Address”), which she confirmed at the hearing of the Leave Application on 2 December 2025. 

3.  Unfortunately, the Decision and the Order were returned undelivered on 31 December 2025.  On the envelope of the returned post, there was a handwriting in Chinese stating that “no such person”. 

The Law

4.  Pursuant to Order 52 rule 3(4)  of the Rules of the High Court, the time limit for an appeal to the Court of Appeal is 14 days after the order of the court.  Hence, the deadline for the applicant to file her appeal would have expired on 7 January 2026.  After a delay of about one month, the applicant issued a summons dated 3 February 2026 (“Summons”)  to apply for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Order. 

5.  At the hearing of the Summons, the applicant appeared in person and made submissions. Before I discuss the facts of this case, I need to deal with the applicable guidelines governing the discretion for an extension of time to appeal against the decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review.  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 affirmation in support of the Summons, the reason for the delay given by the applicant was that she did not receive any correspondence from the court regarding her judicial review that the Leave Application had been dismissed.  Since the posting of the Decision and the Order had been returned undelivered, I accept that the applicant did not receive the Decision and the Order within the validity of the appeal period.  However, I have great reservations as to the reason for the failure of the posting of the count’s documents. 

7.  At the hearing, I tried to confirm with the applicant the correctness of the Confirmed Address. I noticed that the applicant had throughout the entire proceedings provided the same Confirmed Address.  There was never any change of address.  And I said to the applicant that I find it very unusual for a post sent by ordinary post to be returned containing a remark on the envelope of “no such person”. 

8.  Upon the court’s remark on this unusual feature, the applicant suddenly said that she had omitted “Phase 1” in the description of the Confirmed Address. She showed me a document from the international services in which she just inserted at the hearing “Phase 1” in the stated address.  I do not accept the explanation from the applicant. 

9.  As I have stated above, the applicant all along used the Confirmed Address, including the one used for the Summons. There was never a further Phase 1 appearing on any of the Confirmed Address she provided.  I tend to believe that it is likely that the applicant might have already in fact sighted the count’s documents. Somehow, they were returned with the Chinese remark on the returned envelope. 

10.  Even though I were to give the applicant the benefit of doubt that she had not received the court’s documents, I find her explanation as to the reason why she issued the Summons confusing.  In light of the fact that the Decision and the Order were not delivered successfully, I therefore asked the applicant when was the first time she had read the Decision before she decided to appeal.  She then said that she had never read the Decision and it is only after the court physically showed her the Decision did she see it for the first time. 

11.  I asked her then since she had not read the Decision, why she decided to appeal because she would have not known the reasons for the dismissal of the Leave Application. She went on to give me more unbelievable explanation.  Firstly, she said that when she visited the CIC of the Immigration Department to sign the paper, she was told that her case was dismissed and she should go home.  And she said that the immigration officer told her that the case was closed. Surprisingly, she told the Immigration Department that she had not received the “brown envelope”.

12.  The court had great reservation as to whether she actually received the court’s documents containing the Decision and the Order which were placed in a brown envelope.  If she had not seen them before, I question why she would have told the immigration officer that she had not received the “brown envelope”? 

13.  Anyhow, when the court wanted to find out why she wanted to file the Summons, she then kept saying that she needed to file the Summons as she did not want to go home. Then I asked her whether she had filed the Summons personally and she stated in the affirmative. 

14.  In the supporting affirmation, the applicant stated that this court, when dismissing her Leave Application was not fair and that the court did not give her an opportunity to clarify her case and the situation in her country. 

15.  In light of these allegations, I asked the applicant to elaborate more on her proposed ground of appeal.  Then she said she did not write those grounds. It was her lawyer who prepared the paper.  All she was told by her “so-called lawyer” was that she required the lawyer’s help.  She said she was only given a completed set of papers by this “lawyer” and asked to sign on them. 

16.  In the circumstances, I find that the applicant actually has no knowledge of the contents of the affirmation. She has no grounds to support her intended appeal.  I also do not accept that the applicant had not sighted the court’s documents before they were returned to the post. 

17.  The real motive as I understand it, is that the present intended appeal against the Order is not an authentic challenge to the Order.  Her real motive is really to play for time to be allowed to stay in Hong Kong. 

18.  As for the prospects of success, since the applicant has confirmed at the hearing that she had not read the Decision, and that she disowned the proposed grounds stated in the affirmation, in reality she has absolutely no grounds at all to challenge the Order. Her intended appeal is totally devoid on merits. 

Conclusion

19.  Whether to extend time to appeal is the discretion of the court.  Having taken a lot of time in understanding the facts and the evidence of this case and the explanation given by the applicant, I refuse to exercise my discretion to extend the time to the applicant to serve her appeal. 

20.  The Summons is dismissed.