RE NINIK ETIKA SARI

HCAL 2651/2018

[2021] HKCFI 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO  2651 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, by its Decision (“the Director’s Decision”), 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 6 May 2021 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed her application for the reason that there was no realistic prospect of success in her intended application.

4.  The applicant filed a summons dated 23 June 2021 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision.

5.  In her affirmation in support of her application, she said that she did not receive the Court’s decision.

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 had had a protracted examination and cross-examination of her evidence.  It came to its conclusion that the applicant’s story of incurring a loan in Indonesia and that she feared harm at the hands of the loan shark should she return to Indonesia had no credibility and therefore her claims relating to this loan and the loan shark were untrue. [37] It found that the applicant had not established that there were substantial grounds which supported the conclusion that she would face any risk of ill-treatment as claimed if she returned to Indonesia [38].  The Board rejected her appeal.

9.  The applicant has not been able to say in what respect had the Board erred in its Decision.

10.  Her ground in support of this application is not valid to show that she has any reasonable prospect of success in her intended appeal.

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