RE NGUYEN THI HONG

HCAL 1117/2018

[2021] HKCFI 2080

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1117 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 Decisions.

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 15 April 2021 (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 dated 23 June 2021 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision.

5.  In her affirmation in support of her application, she repeated her same story in support of her non-refoulement claim, which has been determined.

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 AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015, §27 the Court of Appeal held that for extension of time for making the application for leave to apply for judicial review, the Court has to consider (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.

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 Board considered the applicant’s evidence and, for the reasons set out in the Board’s Decision, came to its conclusion that there was no evidence to show that she suffered severe injury as the creditor did not intend to cause her severe injury; that the state was not involved and that internal relocation was an option open to her.  See paragraphs 34-74 of the Board’s Decision.

10.  The applicant has not been able to say in what respect had the Board erred in its Decision.

11.  Her grounds in support of this application are not valid to show that she has any reasonable prospect of success in her intended appeal.

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