RE ROFI’ATUL MAKIAH

HCAL 3570/2019

[2021] HKCFI 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO  3570 OF 2019

_____________

_____________

_____________

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 Decisions (“the Board’s Decisions”), 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 Decisions.

3.  By Order dated 23 April 2021 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed her application for the reason that there was no reasonable prospect of success in her intended application.

4.  The applicant filed a summons dated 10 June 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 received the court’s letter late and that she should be given an opportunity to present her case.  She attached the Court’s decision to her affirmation.

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, having considered her evidence, rejected her appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decisions for the reasons as set out below; the references are those in the Board’s Decision.

(1)  Her evidence was accepted.

(2)  According to her evidence, both the Hong Kong debt collector and the Indonesian couple did not harm her or her daughter. [40-44]

(3)  The Board concluded that the applicant was unable to show that, if refouled, she would face a real chance of harm sufficiently serious to amount to torture at the hands of either of the debt collectors or that any of the state agents were involved in the debt collection. [56] and

(4)  The applicant was unable to make out her claim on BOR 2 risk.

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 grounds 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.  Accordingly, I dismiss her application.