RE URGEL NARCISA ANADIA

HCAL 664/2018

[2019] HKCFI 1572

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 664 OF 2018

___________________

___________________

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

1.  This is the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against Deputy Judge J. Lam’s decision by way of Form call-1 dated 30 January 2019 (“the Court’s Decision”).

2.  The Court’s Decision was made where the applicant asked for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”), with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) as the interested party.

3.  However, the applicant was out of time for taking out the said application for leave to apply for judicial review. In the same hearing, the Deputy Judge dealt with the issue whether extension of time should be granted to her for the application for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.[1] Having considered the merits of her case and for the reasons given in the decision, the Deputy Judge refused to grant her extension of time[2].

4.   In the Court’s Decision, the Court had made an Order that if the applicant wished to appeal against the decision, she had to take out the application for leave to appeal within 14 days from the date of the Court’s Decision. The date of her summons is 11 February 2019 and the applicant is within time to make an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. This hearing will simply consider whether leave should be granted to her to appeal against J. Lam’s interlocutory order. This Court shall consider the merits of her intended appeal.

5.  The Applicant has filed a submission in support of her application. In her submission, she submitted that the Deputy Judge’s decision was a very important decision as it had effectively disposed of her application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Because of this decision, she would be subjected to the removal order of the Director of Immigration with significant effect on her.

6.  I agree that the Deputy Judge’s decision has such effect as she said in her submission. However, she still has to demonstrate in her affirmation her reasons to say that she had a reasonable prospect of success in her appeal. That is to say, she must tell this Court the errors committed by the Deputy Judge. She has not been able to do so.

7.  The applicant had appeared before me. At the hearing, I explained the Board’s findings and the Deputy Judge’s decision to her. I asked her if she had any comments on those findings. She said that she had stayed in Hong Kong for about 19 years and she was unwilling to go back. She said that she had no other comments.

8.  In the circumstances, the applicant has no grounds to support her application. Accordingly, I dismiss her application for leave to appeal against the Court’s Decision.