UMAIYAH SITI AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 1039/2020

[2026] HKCFI 1678

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 1039 OF 2020

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.  The applicants are mother and daughter, aged 16. This is their joint application.

2.  The 1^st applicant is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission and she lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). She had given birth to the 2^nd applicant. They lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director.

3.  The Director rejected their application and they appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). Having considered their evidence, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected their appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision. Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the applicants filed Form No. 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

4.  By Form CALL-1 dated 23 December 2025 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court granted leave to the applicants to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision because the Board had not separately considered the minor’s case in accordance with the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Fabio Arlyn Timogan & Others v Evan Ruth Esq. Adjudicator of Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Director of Immigration [2020] HKCV 971.

5.  The Court ordered that the applicants have to file their originating summons within 14 days from the date of the Court’s Order dated 23 December 2025. Time expired on 6 January 2026.

6.  The applicants have not filed their originating summons to date.

7.  By summons dated 26 January 2026, the applicants said that they had no money to file the originating summons and asked for extension of time.

8.  The Department of Justice filed their Notice to Act on 13 January 2026 to act for the Director. They have raised no objection to the applicants’ application.

9.  Time is extended for 28 days from the date of this Order for the applicants to file and serve the originating summons in accordance with the Court’s Order dated 23 December 2025.

10.  As the Court’s decision turned on an issue of law, the Department of Justice should consider whether they have any good reason to oppose the Court’s decision; and if not, should consider whether they should agree that the matter be remitted to the Board for re-consideration, bearing in mind of case management and a minor is involved in this case.

11.  Liberty to apply.

12.  There be no order as to costs for this application.

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