RE ANADA IGAH JUITA RA

HCAL 2767/2018

[2021] HKCFI 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2767 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

The application

1.  The applicant filed a summons dated 18 May 2021 for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Court’s decision out of time.

2.  The applicant is an Indonesian national.  She came to Hong Kong as a domestic helper on 15 August 2012.  Her employment contract was prematurely terminated, but she stayed in Hong Kong without authority.  On 21 July 2014, she was arrested by police and referred to the Immigration Department.  She lodged her non-refoulement claim whilst she was being detained in the Castle Peak Bay Immigration Centre.

3.  By Notice of Decision dated 28 February 2017 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director rejected her claim and she appealed to the Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”).  The Board considered her appeal and by its Decision dated 5 October 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”), it refused her appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

4.  The applicant applied to the High Court for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.  Having considered the merits of the case, by Order dated 10 March 2021 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court found that there was no merit in her proposed judicial review.  The Court dismissed her application for leave to apply for judicial review.

5.  In her affirmation in support of this application, the applicant said that she considered that the Court’s decision was unfair and unreasonable.  She was late because she was unaware of the Court’s decision.  The Court’s decision was sent to the applicant on 10 March 2021 and the letter was not returned.

6.  By virtue of Order 32, rules 11(1) and 11A(1)(a) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), 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 applicant was absent at the hearing of the Board.

9.  The Board intended to clarify some issues with the applicant at the hearing.  Since she was absent, the Board was unable to assess her evidence.

10.  The Board had considered the Director’s Decision.  The Director found that there was no substantial ground to believe that there would be any real risk of her being harmed or killed by her father or the new creditor if she returned to Indonesia [13-19]; that state protection would be available to her [20-27] and that internal relocation was an option open to her [28].  References are in the Director’s Decision.  Since there was no evidence from the applicant, the Board had therefore accepted the Director’s Decision.

11.  There is no evidence to show that the Board erred in its finding of the facts or the application of the law to her case.

12.  The applicant’s grounds are not helpful.  To date, she has not explained why she was absent at the hearing before the Board.

13.  Since there is no reasonable prospect of success in her intended appeal, I decline to extend time for her intended appeal.

14.  I dismiss her application.