RE SUTIMAH

HCAL 1617/2018

[2020] HKCFI 1377

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1617 OF 2018

____________________

____________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

1.  The applicant is an Indonesian national. She arrived in Hong Kong on 26 October 2008 as a domestic helper. Her employment contract was terminated prematurely. She overstayed and was arrested by the Immigration Department for overstaying. She lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 7 March 2014.

2.  By Notice of Decision and Notice of Further Decision respectively dated 29 June 2015 and 3 November 2017, the Director rejected her claim and she appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”). The Board considered her appeal and by its decisions respectively dated 14 July 2017 and 9 August 2018 (“the Board’s Decisions”), it refused her appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decisions.

3.  On 13 August 2018, the applicant applied to the High Court for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decisions.

4.  Having considered the merits of the case, by Form Call-1 dated 11 December 2019 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court found that there was no merit in her proposed judicial review and dismissed her application.

5.  The applicant filed a summons on 16 January 2020 for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision and to advance a new sole ground of appeal.

6.  In her affirmation in support of this application, the applicant said that it was unfair for the court to have reached its decision as it did. She was being detained by the Immigration Department, so she was unable to attend court. The Court’s decision was reached without hearing her and she was not aware of the time limit for her appeal.

7.  In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702 28 June 2019, the Court of Appeal held that the Court has to consider the prospect of the intended appeal in order to determine whether time should be extended.

8.  The applicant appeared before me. She said that she did not receive the Court’s decision and did not know the reasons for the Court to refuse her application.

9.  In the circumstances, I explained the contents of my decision dated 11 December 2019, [2019] HKCFI 2989 to her. In particular, I explained to her that the Board found the facts in support of her application for non-refoulement are that it was a purely domestic dispute with her ex‑boyfriend, which did not involve any state actor or concern any Convention reasons and that she would not be subjected to any severe ill‑treatment if she returned to Indonesia. Internal relocation is also an option open to her. She said that she had no comments on those findings.

10.  There is no evidence to show that the Board erred in its finding of the facts or the application of the law to her case.

11.  She was unable to say in what respect the Court’s decision was wrong. The fact that she did not know the time limit for her to file her appeal does not assist her. If she can show merits in her proposed appeal, this Court will consider extending time for her to file her appeal.

12.  Since the applicant has no reason to appeal, I decline to extend time for her intended appeal. The request for leave to advance a new sole ground of appeal is out of the question as the applicant has not been able to say what the new grounds are.

13.  I dismiss her application.