RE LATIFA BARAJA

HCAL 1116/2019

[2022] HKCFI 3029

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1116 OF 2019

_____________

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

The application

1.  The applicant is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission and she lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director 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 19 July 2022 (“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 on 22 September 2022 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision. In her affirmation in support of her application, the applicant said she does not agree with the Court’s decision. She has not given any explanation for her delay.

5.  I shall now deal with her application.

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.  The Court shall consider the factors as set out in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam [2016] 2 HKC 393 at para. 27(3) in considering if extension of time should be extended: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted. The deadline for her appeal is 2 August 2022. The applicant is late for one month and 20 days. Her application should be dismissed for lack of explanation for her delay. I shall, nevertheless, first consider the merits of the case.

8.  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].”

9.  The applicant claimed that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her husband because of family disputes.

10.  The Director refused her application because her claim was unsubstantiated. She appealed to the Board.

11.  The Board noticed that, on her own evidence, she had ceased contact with her husband since 2012 and she no longer needed to live with him if she returned to Indonesia [28]-[32]. It considered the applicant’s claim solely an issue of domestic violence which was better to be dealt with by the local police intervention [34]. This family dispute also did not involve any state actors [60]. For these reasons, the Board found that the applicant’s claim was not substantiated and dismissed her claim. References refer to the Board’s Decision.

12.  The applicant has not been able to raise any valid reason to show that she has a realistic prospect of success in her intended appeal.

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