RE PHAM THI HOA

HCAL 2756/2018

[2021] HKCFI 2349

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO  2756 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

The application

1.  The applicant is an illegal immigrant 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 Order dated 13 July 2021 (the “Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed her application for the reason that there was no realistic prospect of success in her intended application.

4.  The applicant filed a summons dated 29 July 2021 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision.

5.  In her affirmation in support of her application, she said that she did not receive the Court’s decision.

Discussion

6.  Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reasons, I decide to determine this application without an oral hearing.

7.  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.

8.  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].”

9.  The Board, having considered the relevant legal principles on credibility of evidence and after analyzing her evidence [70-102] came to its conclusion at paragraph 107:

“The claimant’s claim relating to her borrowing money for her business was entirely lacking in even the most basic levels of coherence, detail or fundamental credibility. I have no doubt that this aspect of the claim is simply a fabrication and that no credence whatsoever can be given to it. The inconsistencies of the story of the claimant are fatal because the centerpiece could not stand. I consider the claimant’s claim can be given no credence.”

10.  Her reason in support of her application does not assist her.

11.  The applicant has not raised any viable ground to show that she has any reasonable prospect of success in her intended appeal.

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