RE UMI SITI SURIFAH

HCAL 2529/2018

[2020] HKCFI 1265

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2529 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”).  By Decision dated 26 February 2018, the Director rejected her application and she appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement claims Petition Office (“the Board”).  Having considered her evidence, the Board, by its Decision dated 25 October 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected her appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.

2.  Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court, the applicant filed Form 86 dated 12 November 2018 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.  She had appeared before me.  Having considered her evidence and submission in court, by Form Call-1 dated 19 July 2019, I dismissed her application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.  The applicant intends to appeal to the Court of Appeal against my decision.  But she is out of time.  By summons dated 5 August 2019, she applied for leave to appeal out of time.  She is only 3 days late.

The applicant’s affirmation

4.  The applicant filed an affirmation in support of her application.  In her affirmation, she stated that she did not receive the Court’s Form Call‑1 on time.  She also said that she was advised that she had good ground for her appeal, but she does not have to state her case now.

Discussion

5.  The Court of Appeal in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015 held that the court has to consider the applicant’s merit for her application.

6.  I asked the applicant if she understood the Form Call-1.  She said she received it and she did not know the contents.  I therefore explained the contents of Form Call-1 to her.  She said that she disagreed with the Board’s finding of the facts that she would not be ill-treated if she returned to Indonesia and that she could relocate to live elsewhere.

7.  In Re: Moshsin Ali CACV 54/2018, [2018] HKCA 549, 24 August 2018, the Court of Appeal held that the Board’s decision on the facts is final, subject to judicial review by the court.  Having considered the Board’s assessment of the evidence, this Court found nothing amiss in the Board’s assessment.

8.  The applicant’s reason does not constitute valid reason in support of her application.

9.  The applicant is therefore unable to show that she has merits in her intended appeal.  Extension of time should not be granted.

10.  In the circumstances, I dismiss her application.