RE MISNGATIN

HCAL 473/2022

[2022] HKCFI 3418

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 473 OF 2022

_____________

_____________

_______________

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 8 August 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 summons on 1 & 7 November 2022 respectively applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision. In her affirmation in support of her application she said she does not agree with the Court’s judgment. However, she did not explain why she is late for her appeal.

Discussion

5.  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.

6.  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 22 August 2022. The applicant is late for more than 2 months. I shall, nevertheless, consider the merits of her case.

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 claimed that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her creditor, Mujiono and her husband, Sukiran.

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

10.  Having considered the evidence, the Board found that her claim lacked credibility. Even taking her claim to the highest, there was no evidence showing that the loan shark and her husband would inflict any harms on her if she was refouled since they did not do so in the past. Further, there was no objective evidence on her parents’ medical expenses. Meanwhile, the claimed terms of the loan were illogical. As to her claimed fear of harm from her husband, it remained a bare assertion without any evidential support [39]. The references refer to the Board’s Decision.

11.  The applicant has not raised any valid reason to show that she has a realistic prospect of success in her intended appeal.

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