RE NUR LATIFAH

HCAL 422/2021

[2021] HKCFI 1649

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 422 OF 2021

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  The applicant filed a summons dated 12 May 2021 for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision as described below and for leave to advance new ground of appeal.

2.  The applicant is an Indonesian national.  She came to Hong Kong as a domestic helper on 17 September 2018.  Her contract was terminated prematurely.  She overstayed and was arrested by the Immigration Department on 21 November 2019.  She lodged her non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department on 13 June 2020.

3.  By Notice of Decision dated 19 October 2020 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director rejected her claim and she appealed to the Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”).  The Board considered her appeal and by its Decision dated 22 February 2021 (“the Board’s Decision”), it refused her appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

4.  The applicant applied to the High Court for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.  Having considered the merits of the case, by Order dated 23 April 2021 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court found that there was no merit in her proposed judicial review.  The Court dismissed her application for leave to apply for judicial review.

5.  In her affirmation in support of this application, the applicant said that she was being detained by the Immigration Department.  She takes the view that the Court’s decision is unfair as she was not given a chance to clarify her situation in her country.

6.  By virtue of Order 32, rules 11 (1) & 11A(1)(a) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), I decide to determine this application without an oral hearing.

7.  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].”

8.  The Board had considered her case and, for the reasons given in the Board’s Decision, rejected her appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.  The Board’s reasons are as follows; the references in brackets refer to the Board’s Decision:

(1) The Board accepted her evidence that her husband had threatened and assaulted the applicant. [181]

(2) However, the Board found that the applicant had given inconsistent evidence. [182]  This, coupled with her illegal activities of taking up unauthorized work in Hong Kong and possession of forged identity card, undermined her credibility in support of her claim. [182]

(3) There was no evidence that the Indonesian government was unwilling to help her for a Convention reason. [187]

(4) Internal relocation is an option open to her. [217 - 228]

9.  There is no evidence to show that the Board erred in its finding of the facts or the application of the law to her case.

10.  Her reasons in her affirmation in support of this application do not assist her.

11.  Since there is no reasonable prospect of success in her intended appeal, I decline to extend time for her intended appeal.  I also refuse to grant leave for her to advance new ground of appeal.

12.  I dismiss her application.