HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Miscellaneous Proceedings2021

NURHAYATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Related cases with same parties

  • CACV100/2026SINGH NARINDER PAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV10/2022ROBILLOS ADOLFO DE LA CRUZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV103/2021LUU THI VAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV103/2023ALMAS KHAWAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV103/2025COLLINS OBI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV104/2019DHALI JONY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV104/2023VU THI NGOC MY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV105/2021DINH THI VAN 對 TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITON OFFICE
  • CACV107/2023NGUYEN THI THUY v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV107/2025AHMAD AQEEL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV1081/2025HOANG VAN BINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV110/2021AYUB MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV11/2023RUPASINGHA ARACHCHIGE SHIROMA THARANGANI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV112/2025NONG THI HA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV113/2022SITI MULDIYATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV1151/2025ARSHDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV115/2022GALLEGO VALDES AUGUSTO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV115/2024QUIRANTE JACKIELON DE GUZMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV115/2025DINH KHAC KIEN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
  • CACV1153/2025MEGA PUSPITA SARI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Files (2)

[2021] HKCA 1556-EN-2021-10-29

NURHAYATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HTML content

CAMP 2/2021

[2021] HKCA 1556

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 2 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1924 OF 2018)

________________________

BETWEEN  
 NurhayatiApplicant
 and
 Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition OfficePutative Respondent
 and
 The Director of ImmigrationPutative Interested Party

________________________

Before: Hon Kwan VP and G Lam JA in Court

Date of Written Submission: 23 August 2021

Date of Judgment: 29 October 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Kwan VP and G Lam JA) handed down on 14 July 2021 ([2021] HKCA 987). The Court of Appeal dismissed her application for leave to appeal out of time against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 31 July 2020 ([2020] HKCFI 1754) refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review concerning her non-refoulement claim.

2.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed on 26 July 2021 that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  The applicant lodged her written submissions on 23 August 2021.  Having considered her written submissions and the papers, we consider it appropriate to determine this application on paper and proceed to do so.

3.  The applicant is a national of Indonesia.  She came to Hong Kong to work as a domestic helper on 3 September 2012.  Her employment contract was terminated prematurely and she has overstayed since 10 September 2013.  She lodged her non-refoulement claim on 18 March 2014 on the basis that she will be harmed by her family if she is refouled because of having a child out of wedlock.

4.  She took out a summons in the court below to seek an extension of time to appeal against the decision of the judge.  Her application was late by more than one week, excluding the month of August for the court’s summer vacation.  It was refused by the judge on 30 December 2020[1].

5.  The applicant renewed her application to the Court of Appeal on 4 January 2021.  The application was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 14 July 2021 because there is no prospect of success in the intended appeal.

Grounds of appeal

6.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant only stated that she wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal because she did not get justice, without giving any particular grounds of appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal. 

7.  In her written submissions, she reiterated the problem she faced in Indonesia, the procedural history of her case and the contention that she did not get true justice.

Analysis and disposition

8.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

9.  In the present application, the applicant’s ground of appeal and her submissions on the lack of true justice are just bare assertions without particulars or evidence in support.  In particular, she failed to demonstrate that the Court of Appeal was wrong in dismissing her application. She has not identified any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b).  There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.  For the above reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 26 July 2021.

(Susan Kwan)(Godfrey Lam)
Vice PresidentJustice of Appeal

The Applicant, acting in person

[1] [2020] HKCFI 3124

[2021] HKCA 987-EN-2021-07-14

NURHAYATI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HTML content

CAMP 2/2021

[2021] HKCA 987

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 2 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1924 OF 2018)

________________________

BETWEEN  
 NurhayatiApplicant
 and
 Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non‑refoulement Claims Petition OfficePutative Respondent
 and
 The Director of ImmigrationPutative Interested Party

________________________

Before: Hon Kwan VP and G Lam JA in Court

Date of Written Submission: 10 March 2021

Date of Judgment: 14 July 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 31 July 2020, Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung refused the applicant’s application for leave to seek judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning her non‑refoulement protection claim[1].

2.  On 23 September 2020, the applicant filed a summons for extension of time to appeal against that decision, as the 14-day period, exclusive of the court’s summer vacation, to file her appeal ended on 14 September 2020.  The application was dismissed by Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang on 30 December 2020[2].

3.  On 4 January 2021, the applicant filed the present summons indicating that the High Court judge gave a wrong decision regarding her application for leave to apply for judicial review and stated in her supporting affirmation that she wants to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the High Court’s decision.  This application should be treated as a renewed application for extension of time to appeal against the judge's decision of 31 July 2020 (see Tang Chai On v Tang Sing Ki [2016] 5 HKLRD 104 at §§3 to 8).

4.  The applicant is a national of Indonesia.  She is 40 years old.  She came to Hong Kong to work as a domestic helper on 3 September 2012.  Her employment contract was terminated prematurely and she has overstayed since 10 September 2013.  On 29 July 2013, she gave birth to her son, who has obtained permanent residency status.  She lodged her non‑refoulement claim on 18 March 2014 on the basis that she will be harmed by her family if she is refouled because of having a child out of wedlock.

The Director’s decision

5.  By a Notice of Decision dated 7 April 2017, the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the applicant’s claim on all applicable grounds including torture risk[3], BOR 2 risk[4], BOR 3 risk[5] and persecution risk[6]. 

The Board’s decision

6.  The applicant appealed against the Director’s decision to the Board.  She attended the hearing before the Board on 8 May 2018.  The applicant told the Board that her family did not threaten to harm her but simply told her not to return with a child.  The Board considered there was no evidence that the applicant’s family has threatened to harm her or her son or that her family has any intention to do so.  There was also no evidence to show that anyone else in Indonesia would harm her or her son.  The Board also held it would be reasonable for her to relocate to other locations in Indonesia and police protection would be available to her in Indonesia in any event.  Therefore, the appeal was dismissed by the Board on 10 September 2018.

The intended judicial review

7.  The applicant filed a Form 86 and an affirmation on 13 September 2018 which was subsequently amended as an application to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Board. She did not put forward any grounds for her intended challenge but simply stated in her supporting affirmation that she does not want to go back to Indonesia as her family does not accept her with her child and she does not have a place to stay with her child there.

The judge’s decision

8.  DHCJ K W Lung considered the application on paper as the applicant did not request for an oral hearing.  The judge held that the applicant does not have any reasonable prospect of success in her proposed judicial review as there is nothing to show that the Board had committed any error in its finding of the facts or its application of the law to the applicant’s case.  Thus, the application was dismissed on 31 July 2020.

Grounds of intended appeal

9.  In the applicant’s summons, she only stated that the judge’s decision was not correct without providing any particulars or elaboration.

10.  The contentions stated in her written submissions may be summarized as follows:

(1)  The applicant fled to Hong Kong to save her life from her husband and his family.  They wanted to kill her as she did not pay all her income to them and they beat her many times and tried to kill her;

(2)  The police did not help her but gave support to her husband;

(3)  The Director and the Board refused her application as they did not find anything in her claim to be true.

Analysis and disposition

11.  In considering whether to extend time for appealing against 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.

12.  Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A, the applicant may appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judge’s order refusing leave within 14 days after such refusal.  The order was made on 31 July 2020.  The applicant took out a summons at the court below on 23 September 2020.  She was late by more than one week, excluding the court’s summer vacation during the period of August 2020.

13.  The applicant explained to Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang at the hearing of her application for extension of time that she only learned about the order when someone claiming to be a staff of the High Court called her telling her about the order.  As a matter of fact, the court sent the decision to the applicant’s address by post in July 2020 which was later returned to the court by the post office as the address was incomplete.  It is noted that the address previously provided by the applicant to the court was stated as “Flat 2/F” while the address stated in her present application is “Flat F, 2/F”. Under these circumstances, the applicant’s explanation for the delay cannot be considered as justifiable as it is established that a litigant has the duty to give the court an accurate address to which correspondence or notice can come to his or her attention in a timely manner.  The consequence of any delay or failure occasioned by the ineffectiveness of such an address would fall on the shoulder of the litigant (Re Hasmi Rizwan Imran[2018] HKCA 439, at [15]). 

14.  As the delay is inexcusable even though it is not substantial, the applicant must show a real prospect of success on the merits to obtain an extension of time to appeal: Secretary for Justice v HongKongYaumatei Ferry Co Ltd [2001] 1 HKC 125.

15.  In the present application, the applicant raised some grounds in her written submissions which had not been raised previously at the court below and were contrary to her own claim.  According to the applicant’s own case, she is single and gave birth to her son who was born out of wedlock but she submitted in writing that her husband wanted to kill her. 

16.  Her case is self-contradicting and her submissions are not supported by evidence.  She also failed to provide any particulars or elaboration to demonstrate how the judge was wrong in dismissing her application.  She failed to show there is any prospect of success in the intended appeal.  We therefore refuse to grant leave to appeal out of time and dismiss the summons filed on 4 January 2021.

(Susan Kwan)(Godfrey Lam)
Vice PresidentJustice of Appeal

The Applicant, acting in person

[1] [2020] HKCFI 1754

[2] [2020] HKCFI 3124

[3] This refers to the risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap 115.

[4] This refers to the risk of being arbitrarily deprived of life under Article 2 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383.

[5] This refers to risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap 383.

[6] This refers to the risk of persecution with reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.