IMBUH KARINA BINTI YAMRONI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

HCAL 254/2017

[2019] HKCFI 635

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 254 OF 2017

___________________

___________________

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

1.  This is an application for extension of time to appeal against my decision of 4 August 2017 refusing this applicant leave to apply for judicial review. The applicant may appeal as of right but has to observe the time limits to appeal an interlocutory order. Pursuant to Order 53 rule 3(4), the applicant had 14 days in which to apply to the Court of Appeal. She failed to do so. She now requires and seeks leave to extend time to appeal against that order. There has been a 17‑month delay. This application is dated 18 January 2019 and is supported by an affirmation.

2.  The applicant filed a Form 86, a notice of application for leave to apply for judicial review on 31 May 2017.  The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the TCAB”) dated 22 February 2017.  The TCAB adjudicator rejected the applicant’s non‑refoulement protection claim.  She found the applicant did not face a real risk of torture if she returned to Indonesia nor did she face a BOR 3 risk, persecution risk or a torture risk. 

3.  The applicant has been in Hong Kong since May 2008 when she arrived as a foreign domestic helper. She lodged a claim in December 2013 after her second contract was terminated after one day.  She overstayed in Hong Kong after her visa expired.

4.  I have set out the background to the applicant’s claim in my decision to refuse leave.  My order was dated 4 August 2017 and the applicant’s explanation in her affirmation is that she did not file her notice of appeal in time because she was unaware of the time limit and the law.  In her summons she refers to making a mistake by filing her leave application twice.  In the affirmation there are no grounds of appeal set out.

5.  In the oral hearing I asked the applicant to explain what she meant in her application.  She tried to explain that she had gone to the wrong place to file her leave to appeal application.  She followed a friend to do it.  When I tried to further clarify, the applicant said her friend told her to go to the legal aid department which refused her legal aid, following which a friend told her to go to the High Court and apologise for her late application.  She had no reasonable explanation that I can decipher for her failure to appeal my decision on time.  She is implying that she did not know the law nor the process.

6.  The application was over 17 months late, a substantial delay.  Her explanation that she was unaware of the law and time limits imposed to appeal is no excuse, ignorance of the law is no excuse.  I find no reasonable explanation for the delay in bringing the intended appeal.

7.  In any event, I find there is no merit nor any real prospect of success in the intended appeal.  There are no grounds of review nor any complaint of my decision to refuse leave in this application.  The applicant had nothing to add in the oral hearing.

8.  Having considered the length of delay and the lack of merit in this application, it would not be in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time.  The applicant’s summons dated 18 January 2019 is dismissed.