RE TRAN THI THUY QUYNH

HCAL 1641/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1896

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1641 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 2 June 2020 (“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 14 July 2020 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision.  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 she had no money to get legal advice and she had good grounds and merits in her intended 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, for the reasons set out in the Board’s Decision, came to its conclusion refusing her appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.  Below are the reasons; the references are those in the Board’s Decision.

(1) This case was a loan dispute between the applicant and Hai [30].

(2) Although Hai had threatened her, Hai had not carried out his threat.  Also, though Hai’s men kicked her waist, she did not suffer serious injury [33].

(3) Hai’s treatment did not amount to torture within the meaning of section 37U (1) of the Ordinance [35].

(4) Although the applicant said that the police could not help her because they were corruptive, the information showed that the Vietnamese government had recently undergone reforms to combat corruption.  In any event, the applicant had never reported the matter to police [36].

(5) The Board found that the applicant had failed to establish that there were substantial grounds for believing that she would be subjected to torture if she was sent back to Vietnam [37].

(6) Internal relocation is an option open to her in Vietnam [45 & 46].

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.