NILASARI MERISTIKA AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

NILASARI MERISTIKA AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

The court refused extension of time because the delay (30 days) was unjustified, the applicants failed to show sufficient reasons and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given that the Board’s factual findings that the non-refoulement claim was unsubstantiated had not been properly challenged; accordingly the joint application was dismissed.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 1834
Parties
1st Applicant: Nilasari Meristika; 2nd Applicant: Joko Susianto Chiear Joevan; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 April 2026
Case Number
HCAL1202/2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Non Refoulement Appeal; Extension of Time to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal (dismissed)
Outcome
Application for extension of time to file notice of appeal refused; joint application dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture Claims, Extension of Time to Appeal, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review, Credibility and Fact Findings, Procedural Irregularity
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Asylum and Non Refoulement Law Child Welfare Law Non Refoulement Torture Claims +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nilasari Meristika

1st Applicant

Joko Susianto Chiear Joevan

2nd Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Non Refoulement Appeal; Extension of Time to Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extension of time to file a notice of appeal
  2. 2 Whether the intended appeal has a realistic prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the Board’s factual findings were vulnerable to challenge

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused extension of time because the delay (30 days) was unjustified, the applicants failed to show sufficient reasons and the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success given that the Board’s factual findings that the non-refoulement claim was unsubstantiated had not been properly challenged; accordingly the joint application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time to file notice of appeal refused; joint application dismissed

Orders

  • Extension of time to file notice of appeal refused
  • Joint application dismissed