MANANGAN IRENE MANGLICMOT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1687/2023

[2026] HKCFI 2316

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1687 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Introduction

1.  This is the Applicant’s application by summons dated 13 April 2026 for extension of time to appeal the order of this Court dated 20 March 2025 (the “Order”)  refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review (the “leave application”). 

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.  By 13 April 2026, the time to appeal has expired.  The application for leave to appeal is one year and ten days out of time.  The delay is very inordinate. 

3.  In Jagg Sing 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. 

Length of the delay and reasons for delay

4.  The Applicant confirmed that she received the Order on 20 March 2025.  Her explanation for the delay in appealing is that she does not have the funds to appeal.  This is a lame excuse as she does not have to pay any filing fee for appealing and she is not instructing private legal representation.  A delay of one year and ten days for an appeal period of fourteen days is very substantial and weighs heavily against the exercise of the Court’s discretion to grant extension of time to appeal. 

Prospect of success of the intended appeal

5.  The procedural history against which this application arose is as follows.  On 27 July 2023, the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”)  dismissed her claim for non-refoulement protection holding that her fear of harm which is the basis of her claim is not well-founded.  She applied for leave to apply for judicial review.  In refusing her leave application, his Court held that the finding of the Board is a mixed finding of law and of fact; that there is no error of law in the Board’s finding and that insofar as the Board’s finding is a finding of fact it is exclusive within the realm of the Board and is not reviewable save for errors of law, Her leave application was refused by this Court.  Now she seeks leave to appeal this Court’s decision out of time. 

6.  The grounds of her intended appeal as advanced in her supporting affirmation is that her life would be in danger if she is refouled back to the Philippines.  She said she is a victim and a witness in a bombing incident in the Philippines.  She would be at risk of being killed by the bomber responsible for the bombing incident.  These are precisely the essence of her fear on which her claim for non-refoulement protection was based and which the Board rejected as not being well-founded.  This Court held that insofar as the Board’s finding is a finding of fact it is not reviewable, save for errors of law, procedural unfairness and irrationality and this Court could find no such vitiating elements in the Board’s Decision. 

7.  The Applicant is now repeating the case she presented to the Board as her grounds of appeal against this Court’s decision. She is not attacking the Board’s finding that her fear was not well founded, nor this Court’s finding that the said finding of the Board is one of fact and is not the result of any such vitiating elements.  Simply put, the Applicant has failed to plead what is wrong, whether of fact or of law, in this Court’s decision.  Her intended appeal has no prospect of success. 

Prejudice to the respondent

8.  It is an abuse of process to challenge a decision without proper and good ground of appeal and which is bound to fail. It is wasting the Court’s and the administration’s resources.  Her application is an obvious attempt to delay her refoulement which in itself is also an abuse of process.  To allow such a challenge to proceed when it is already out of time would encourage other claimants to indulge in such abuse and create prejudice to the intended respondent and to the administration. 

Conclusion

9.  In view of the very inordinate delay, the absence of an arguable ground with prospect of success and the prejudice to the intended respondent, the application for extension of time to appeal is refused.