RE LAMA RINA

HCAL 1830/2018

[2020] HKCFI 1772

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1830 OF 2018

__________________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.  The applicant is a Nepalese national. She came to Hong Kong as a visitor. She overstayed and lodged a non‑refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”).

2.  The Director rejected her claim and she appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”).  The Board considered her appeal and by its decision dated 21 March 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”), it refused her appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.

3.  The applicant then applied to the High Court for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.  However, the application was out of time for about two and a half months.  It is quite a substantial delay.  The Court considered the merits of the case in order to determine whether time should be extended for her to proceed with her application.  AW v Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015.

4.  Having considered the merits of the case, by Form Call‑1 dated 19 September 2019 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court found that there was no merit in her proposed judicial review.  The Court therefore declined to extend time for her to file her application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.  Accordingly, the Court dismissed her application.

5.  The Court further directed that if the applicant intended to appeal the order of refusing to extend time for her to proceed with her application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision, she had to take out an application within 14 days from the date of the Court’s decision for leave with reasons in support of it.  The Court might decide whether a hearing would be required, if not, her application would be dealt with on paper.

6.  Pursuant to the above directions, the applicant has taken out a summons dated 3 December 2019 for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.  This application is again out of time.  In her affirmation, she stated the grounds below.

(1)     She did not understand English and she was not clear about the Judgment.

(2)     There was no translation for her.  No one read the judgment to her.

(3)     The Court had not exercised caution and diligence in handling her case.

(4)     The Court had been biased and wrong in making the decision.

(5)     She did not have legal representation in the hearing before the Court.

(6)     The Court had not explained to her that she could appeal against its decision.

7.  In Re Khan MD Omar [2019] HKCA 803, 19 July 2019, the Court of Appeal held that lack of translation service for the applicant outside court proceedings cannot render the process unfair.  Also see Re Sharma Poonam [2019] HKCA 804, 19 July 2019.

8.  The Court of Appeal in Re Ahmed Syed Rafiq CACV 272/2017 [2018] HKCA 178, 26 March 2018 §22 held that the applicant is not entitled to free legal representation at every stage of the proceedings as she had already had duty lawyer’s service at the screening stage.

9.  Grounds (1), (2) and (5) are not sustainable reasons. Grounds (3) and (4) are her opinions without any evidence or particulars in support of them.  Ground (6) is not sustainable as the Court’s order has informed her that if she wanted to appeal, she had to take out her application within 14 days from the date of the Court’s order.

10.  The applicant was unable to say in what respect the Court’s decision was wrong.

11.  Since the applicant has no reason to appeal, I dismiss her application.