SRI SUNARMI ASIH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 969/2021

[2026] HKCFI 5093

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 969 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

1.  On 29 May 2026, this court sent an order “(Order”) together with the decision of this court in the prescribed Form “CALL-1” (“Decision”) by ordinary post to the applicant’s last known address.  In the Decision, the court dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review (“Leave Application”) against the Appeal Board’s decision dated 10 September 2018, dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration’s rejecting her non-refoulement claim.

2.  Pursuant to Order 53, 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 an order of the court.  The deadline for the applicant to file her appeal therefore expired on 12 June 2026.  After a delay of about 13 days, the applicant issued a Summons (“Summons”) on 25 June 2026 to apply for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Order.  At the hearing of the Summons, the applicant appeared in person and made submissions.

The Law

3.  The applicable guidelines governing the discretion for allowing an extension of time to appeal against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review are as follows.  The court shall 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.

4.  In the applicant’s affirmation in support of the Summons, the applicant did not provide any reason for the delay.  She only repeated the facts of her case.  At the hearing, when the applicant was asked to give an explanation for the delay, she gave a very incoherent explanation, which was by and large a repeat of the facts of her case.  Despite much effort this court made to help her provide a more coherent explanation, the applicant was not able to do so.

5.  In considering the length of delay, I believe that a delay of about 30 days cannot be described as significant.  Nonetheless, the applicant shall still be required to provide a reasonable reason for the delay.  She is not able to provide any.

6.  As for the prospects of success, again, the applicant has not been able to advance any proposed grounds in support of her intended appeal against the order.  Despite much time the court has given to the applicant, the applicant was still not able to raise any valid grounds.  She just kept repeating the facts which she had repeated before, that she is afraid to go back to Indonesia.  Hence, I am not satisfied that there is a good prospect of success.

7.  Having regard to the lack of explanation and the lack of merits, I refuse to exercise my discretion to extend time to the applicant to serve her appeal.

8.  The Summons is therefore dismissed.