RE SAUDAH AND ANOTHER

HCAL 2387/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1978

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2387 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

The application

1.  The applicants are illegal immigrants.  The 1^st applicant is the mother of the 2^nd appellant, on whose behalf and herself, she lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”).  The Director, by his Decision, rejected their application and they appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”).  Having considered her evidence, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected their appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

2.  Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the applicants filed Form No. 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.  This application was late and they applied for extension of time to appeal.

3.  By Order dated 13 May 2020 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed their application for the reason that there was no realistic prospect of success in their intended application.

4.  The applicants filed a summons dated 31 August 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 their application, the 1^st applicant said that she does not understand the judicial system.

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 [32], came to the conclusion that they had not made out a case for non-refoulement for the reasons below; the references are those in the Board’s Decision.

(1) She had never been ill-treated by her husband.

(2) The loan shark’s threat was only a verbal threat and no action had been taken against her.

(3) Her husband’s threat was also verbal threats only.

(4) She and her husband had no contact after she countered her husband with the money she remitted to him.

(5) Her husband did not call her again after learning that she had a baby.

(6) There would be state protection.

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 they have any realistic prospect of success in their intended appeal.

11.  In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for their appeal.  Accordingly, I dismiss their application.