RE BEGUM JOSNA

HCAL 1850/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1772

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1850 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 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 17 June 2020 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed her application for the reason that there was no reasonable prospect of success in her intended application.

4.  The applicant filed a summons dated 7 July 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 within the usual time.

5.  In her affirmation in support of her application, she said that she received the court’s letter with the Court’s decision late; that she had to seek her friend’s advice as she is not conversant with the court’s procedures and she had no money to engage a lawyer for herself; that she believed she had merits in her appeal and there would be other grounds as well; that she is a genuine asylum seeker and she is lucky that she was able to leave her country and her problems still exist in her country.

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, came to the conclusion that the applicant was not a truthful witness and she manufactured her evidence-see paragraphs 103-132 of the Board’s Decision and that internal relocation was an option open to her [127].  She failed to establish her BOR 2 risk [128].  The references in brackets are those in the Board’s Decision.

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 she has any reasonable chance of success in her intended appeal.

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