RE NURIMAH

HCAL 1706/2018

[2021] HKCFI 2131

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1706 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 Decisions.

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 20 December 2019 (“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 12 May 2020 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision and for leave to advance new ground of appeal.  The file was misplaced and the application has not been dealt with in the usual time.

5.  In her affirmation in support of her application, she said that the Court’s decision was unfair without allowing her to clarify her case and the situation in her country and that she was unaware of the time limit for appeal.

Discussion

6.  Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reason, 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 considered the applicant’s evidence and found that her evidence was accepted.  However, her case did not warrant non-refoulement protection in that her case was a matrimonial argument about money with some minor violence, followed by many threats, attempts to reconcile, then new partners and children for both parties and so on [61]; that the adjudicator concluded that the level of real risk to the applicant was non-existent [70-71]; that state protection was available to her [66]; that there was no evidence to show that she and her daughter would be subjected to ill-treatment reaching a minimum level of severity if they returned to Indonesia and her case has nothing to do with persecution under the Convention. [75 & 79]

9.  The applicant has not been able to say in what respect had the Board erred in its Decision.

10.  Her grounds in support of this application are not valid to show that she has any reasonable chance of success in her intended appeal.

11.  In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for her appeal and to give leave to her to advance new ground of appeal.  Accordingly, I dismiss her application.