Case Detail

AONSRI PATTAMAWAN 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)

[2025] HKCFI 5793-EN-2025-12-30

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

HTML content

HCAL 193/2024

[2025] HKCFI 5793

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 193 of 2024

_____________

BETWEEN
	Aonsri Pattawan	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative
		Interested Party

_____________

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers

Date of Decision:

30 December 2025

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

The application

1. The 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”). The Director rejected her application and she appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). Having considered her evidence, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected her appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

2. Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the applicant filed Form No. 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3. By Judgment dated 1 April 2025 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed her application for the reason that there is no realistic prospect of success in her intended application.

4. The Court’s decision was sent to the applicant on 1 April 2025 at her last known address without being returned from the Post Office. She is deemed to receive the Court’s decision[1].

5. The time for filing the notice of appeal expired on 15 April 2025[2].

6. By summons filed on 17 October 2025, the applicant applied for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time. She is late for more than 5 months.

7. In her affirmation in support of her application, the applicant said that her ex-boyfriend was stalking her and threatened to harm her.

Discussion

8. Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A and Order 53, rule 3(3) of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reason, I decide to determine this application on paper without an oral hearing[3].

9. The Court will consider the factors as set out in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam [2016] 2 HKC 393 at para. 27(3) in considering if extension of time should be extended: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted. I shall consider the merits of her case.

10. In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike[2019] HKCA 702, the Court of Appeal held:

“19. The prospect of success of the intended appeal is important: the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued, see Re Rahman Wasif[2019] HKCA 299 at [13]; Re Kpamou Gbotoi Bernard[2019] HKCA 168; and Re Irshad Muhammad[2018] HKCA 864 at [16].”

11. The applicant claimed that if refouled, her boyfriend will harm or kill her because of their previous relationship.

12. The Director rejected her claim because it was not substantiated. She appealed to the Board.

13. Having considered the evidence, the Board dismissed her appeal for the reason that it agreed with the Director and found that her claim was unfounded.

14. Those reasons under paragraph 7 are not valid for her delay.

15. There is no valid reason from the applicant to challenge the Board’s Decision or this Court’s decision.

16. The Court has just received an application from the applicant for withdrawing this application because it is safe for her to return to her country.

17. In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for her appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss her application.

(K.W. Lung)
Deputy High Court Judge

The applicant was unrepresented.

[1] Re: Ravinder Singh[2023] HKCA 604, Hon Poon CJHC and Cheung JA, 28 April 2023

“17. The applicant had not filed any notice of change of address for service to notify of any changes in his address. According to the Court’s record, the Court’s decision was sent to the applicant’s last known address on 31 March 2022 by ordinary post. He was deemed to receive the same on the next following day, not being a specified day such as a Saturday or a general holiday. He was therefore deemed to have received the Court’s decision on 1 April 2022. ”

[2] The public holidays are included in the 14-day period as per Order 2(5) of the Rules of the High Court

2. Reckoning periods of time (O. 3, r. 2)

(5) Where, apart from this paragraph, the period in question, being a period of 7 days or less, would include a specified day, that day shall be excluded.

(35 of 1998 s. 5; 18 of 2016 s. 5)

[3] Ogbozor Tochukwu Eugene v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Director of Immigration[2022] HKCA 607, Hon Kwan VP and G Lam JA, 6 May 2022:

“16. … … In respect of his complaint of no oral hearing, the judge is entitled to decide the matter on paper pursuant to the Order 32, rules 11 and 11A and Order 53 rule 3(3) of the Rules of the High Court.”

HCAL 193/2024

[2025] HKCFI 888

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 193 OF 2024

_____________

BETWEEN

	Aonsri Pattamawan	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

_____________

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers

Date of Judgment:

1 April 2025

_____________

J U D G M E N T

_____________

THE APPLICATION

1. The applicant applies for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision dated 5 May 2023 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board’s Decision”). Her application is late. Her application shall not be later than 3 months from the date of the Board’s Decision^{^[1]}, which expired on 5 August 2023. Her application was filed on 19 January 2024. The delay is more than 5 months. This issue will be dealt with below.

2. The applicant did not request an oral hearing. Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(3) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), I shall deal with her application on paper.

3. Pursuant to Order 20, rule 8 and Order 53, rule 3(6) of the Rules of the High Court, Form 86 is amended to the effect that the proposed respondent is the Board and the Director of Immigration is the interested party.

The applicant

4. The applicant, aged 33, is a national of Thailand. She arrived in Hong Kong on 25 February 2020 as a visitor and was allowed to stay until 26 March 2020. She overstayed and surrendered to the Immigration Department on 24 February 2022. She lodged the non-refoulement claim by written signification on the same day. Her claim is on the basis that, if refouled, she will be harmed of killed by her ex-boyfriend Phokai Virote because of their previous relationship.

5. According to the applicant, she had quarrels with her ex-boyfriend and he assaulted her, even in public, from time to time, on average twice a week. After the assault, she went to see a doctor, who gave her some medicine and she recovered within one month. Their relationship broke up because her ex-boyfriend had another girlfriend. His new girlfriend was jealous and she had once assaulted her when they met on the street. Her ex-boyfriend told her to move out of the district and he would kill her if he saw her again. Later, she had another boyfriend from Hong Kong. She came to Hong Kong to see her boyfriend. Details of her story are set out in paragraph 6 of the Notice of Decision dated 16 June 2022 (“the Director’s Decision”).

The Director’s Decision

6. The Director considered the applicant’s claim in relation to the following risks:

(a) risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);
(b) risk of violation of the right to life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (“HKBOR”) (“BOR 2 risk”);
(c) risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and
(d) risk of persecution by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”).

7. By way of the Director’s Decision, the Director dismissed the applicant’s claim. The Director found that: (i) the risk of being harmed or killed by her ex-boyfriend is very law; (ii) state protection is available; and (iii) internal relocation is viable. [10-22]

The Board’s Decision

8. The applicant appealed the Director’s Decision to the Board. On 6 April 2023, the Board conducted an oral hearing.

9. Having considered the applicant’s evidence, the Board agreed with the Director and found that the applicant had failed to establish that she will be harmed or killed if she is refouled to Thailand. [87]

10. The Board dismissed the applicant’s appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.

Application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision

11. The applicant has filed Form 86 dated 19 January 2024 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

12. The applicant did not raise any specific ground in support of her application. Nor did she explain her late application.

DISCUSSION

13. As mentioned in paragraph 1, this application is late. In AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015, §27 the Court of Appeal held that for extension of time for making the application for leave to apply for judicial review, the Court has to consider (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted. I shall consider the merits of the applicant’s case.

14. The role of this Court is supervisory, meaning that it ensures that the Board complied with the public law requirements in coming to the Board’s Decision on the applicant’s appeal. The Court will not usurp the fact-finding power vested in the Director and the Board. See TK v Michael C Jenkins Esq and Director of Immigration [2013] 1 HKC 526, §40 and Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration[2018] HKCA 524, §14 (1).

15. The Court will bear in mind that the Board’s Decision should be examined with rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny.

16. In Re: Kartini[2019] HKCA 1022, 9 September 2019, the Court of Appeal held:

“13. (1) … …Assessment of evidence and COI materials and risk of harm, state protection and viability of internal relocation are primarily within the province of the Board (and the Director). The court will not intervene by way of judicial review unless there are errors of law or procedural unfairness or irrationality in the decision of the Board.”

17. The applicant has failed to raise any valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision. In my view, the Board’s Decision is reasonable and the Court has no reason to interfere with it.

18. The applicant therefore fails to show that she has any realistic prospect of success in her proposed judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

DISPOSITION

19. I refuse to extend time for the applicant to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Accordingly, I dismiss her application.

	(K.W. Lung)
	Deputy High Court Judge

The applicant was unrepresented.

[1] Delay in applying for relief (O. 53, r. 4)

(1) An application for leave to apply for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when grounds for the application first arose unless the Court considers that there is good reason for extending the period within which the application shall be made. (L.N. 356 of 1988)
(2) Where the relief sought is an order of certiorari in respect of any judgment, order, conviction or other proceeding, the date when grounds for the application first arose shall be taken to be the date of that judgment, order, conviction or proceeding.