RE PHAM THI HIEN

HCAL 1290/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1876

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1290 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  The applicant filed a summons dated 24 May 2021 for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision as described below.

2.  The applicant is a Vietnamese national.  She came to Hong Kong illegally on 22 September 2014.  On 24 September 2014, she was arrested and she lodged her non-refoulement claim.

3.  By Notice of Decision dated 28 April 2016 and Notice of Further Decision dated 31 October 2016 (“the Director’s Decisions”), 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 15 August 2017 (“the Board’s Decision”), it refused her appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decisions.

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 18 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 did not explain why she is late for her appeal. She simply repeated her story of being chased by her creditor in Vietnam.

6.  By virtue of Order 32, rule 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 Board had considered the Director’s Decisions.  It rejected her appeal on the grounds as follows:

(1) the applicant’s evidence was inconsistent and contradictory;

(2) hers was a concocted story and there was no loan shark, loans or assaults as she said; see §§19-43

(3) there was no evidence that she was injured [51];

(4) there was no state involvement [52];

(5) because of the reasons above, the Board rejected her claim on Torture risk [53], BOR 2 risk [55], BOR 3 risk [59] and Persecution risk [63];

(6) state protection was available to her [64]; and

(7) internal relocation was an option open to her [71].

9.  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.

10.  Her reasons in her affirmation in support of this application do not assist her.

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

12.  Accordingly, I dismiss her application.