RE AKTHER SAMIMA

HCAL 1089/2019

[2022] HKCFI 2331

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

ACTION NO 1089 OF 2019

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

The application

1.  The applicant is an illegal immigrant by remaining in Hong Kong without permission and she lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (the “Director”). The Director, by his Decisions, 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 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 Second Decision.

3.  By Form CALL-1 dated 16 June 2022 (the “Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed her application for the reason that there is no realistic prospect of success in her intended judicial review. The deadline for her to file her notice of appeal is within 14 days after the Court’s decision^[1].

4.  The applicant filed a summons on 19 July 2022 for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time.

5.  In her affirmation in support of her application, she said she did not receive the Court’s decision. According to the record, the Court’s decision was sent to her last known address on 16 June 2022.

Discussion

6.  Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reasons, I decide to determine this application without an oral hearing.

7.  In AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015, §27 the Court of Appeal held that for extension of time for making the application for leave to apply for judicial review, the Court has to consider (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted. I shall consider the merits of the case.

8.  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].”

9.  The applicant claimed that if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by the Awami League (“AL”).

10.  The Director found that her claim was not substantiated. She appealed to the Board.

11.  Having considered the applicant’s evidence, the Board found that parts of her evidence lacked credibility. Also, the Board found that state protection was available to her [22]-[24]. In any event, internal relocation was not unduly harsh for the applicant [31]-[34]. There were no supporting facts as to why she could not return to her country or why the government was not a democratic government. As a result, the Board agreed with the Director that the BOR 2 risk was not engaged in her claim and dismissed her appeal. The references refer to the Board’s Decision.

12.  The applicant has no valid ground to challenge the Board’s Second Decision. Nor can she point out any error on the part of this Court in the assessment of her application.

13.  There is no realistic prospect of success in her intended appeal. I therefore refuse to extend time for her to appeal and I dismiss her application.