JOENALYN COLLANTES VILLANUEVA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 418/2026

[2026] HKCFI 1830

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 418 of 2026

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

	consideration of documents only;          or
	consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court;

Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

Observations for the Applicant:

THE APPLICATION

1.  The applicant was an illegal immigrant and had made non-refoulement claim to the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). By the Director’s Decision dated 24 December 2024 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director refused her claim on the applicable risks.[1]

2.  The applicant appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) by filing the notice of appeal dated 24 November 2025 and received by the Board on 26 November 2025.

3.  By Decision dated 15 December 2025 (“the Board’s Decision”), the Board disallowed the filing of the notice of appeal for the reason that it was late, applying the revised section 37TZ of the Immigration Ordinance (“the Ordinance”).

4.  Effective on 1 August 2021, Section 37TZ of the Ordinance for late filing of the notice of appeal applied. Under this revised version, the Board is not required to consider the merits of the applicant’s case before dismissing the appeal.

5.  The Board held that time expired on 11 January 2025 for the applicant to file the notice of appeal. She was therefore late for over 10 months. The Board did not accept the applicant’s explanation that she had no money for transportation at the time to go to the Immigration Department to submit her document. See the Board’s Decision by hyperlink. [5] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2026/HCAL000418_2026_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf

6.  The applicant has filed Form 86 on 16 February 2026 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. She did not ask for a hearing.

DISCUSSION

7.  The Board is not correct to say that the deadline for the applicant to file his notice of appeal is on 11 January 2025. The correct date should be 16 January 2025.

8.  The Court of Appeal in Re: Kamaljeet Singh [2023] HKCA 1195, Hon Chu VP and G Lam JA in court held:

“17. The statutory 14-day time limit for appealing a decision by the Director to reject a non-refoulement claim is prescribed by s 37ZS(1) of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap 115), which provides (and provided at the time in 2015):

‘37ZS. Notice of appeal

(1) A person who wishes to appeal against a decision referred to in section 37ZR must file with the Appeal Board a notice of appeal within 14 days after notice of the decision is given to the person unless late filing of the notice is allowed by the Board under section 37ZT(3).’

18. It is notable that s 37ZS(1) provides that the 14-day period begins on the day after the Director’s notice of decision is given to the non-refoulement claimant, not on the day after the decision is issued.

19. Section 37ZV(1) provided (in 2015) that a notice required to be served or given by the Director on or to a person under that Part of the Ordinance could be served on or given to that person personally, or by leaving it for him, or sending it by post to him, or, where the person was acting by a legal representative, by leaving it for or sending it by post to the legal representative.

20. On the precise time when a notice so given by the Director was deemed to have been given, s 37ZV(2) provided:

‘(2) A notice or other document served or given in the manner described in subsection (1), other than sending it by post, is conclusively presumed to have been served or given and received at the following time –

(a) if it is served on or given to the person personally, when it is so served or given; or

(b) if it is left at a place of abode or business or an address, on the second working day after it was so sent.

(3) A notice or other document served or given by sending it by post in the manner described in subsection (1) is presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to have been served or given and received on the second working day after it was so sent.’”

9.  The Director’s Decision was dated 24 December 2024, Tuesday. It was sent to the applicant by post. 25 and 26 December were not working days insofar as the Board is concerned. The applicant is deemed to receive the Director’s Decision on 2 January 2025. The deadline for her to file the notice of appeal with the Board was 16 January 2025.

10.  In any event, the applicant was late in her filing of the notice of appeal on 25 November 2025 for over 10 months.

11.  The Board did not accept the applicant’s explanation for being late. I agree that the applicant’s explanation is unreasonable. She should have other means to go to the Immigration Department.

12.  I agree that the Board, under section 37 TZ in its revised form, has no discretion to extend time because she did not give valid reasons for her delay.

13.  There is no valid reason for the Court to interfere with the Board’s Decision.

14.  The applicant fails to show that her intended judicial review application has reasonable prospect of success.

CONCLUSION

15.  For the above reasons, I dismiss the applicant’s application.

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Form CALL-1