RE DWI SURYANI SAFITRI

HCAL 1371/2018

[2019] HKCFI 1440

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1371 OF 2018

___________________

___________________

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

1.  This is the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against my decision in Form Call-1 dated 31 January 2019 (“the Court’s Decision”).  The date of the summons is 18 February 2019.  Therefore, the applicant is out of time for making the application.  I shall, therefore, first consider whether time should be extended for her to appeal.

2.  The factual background of the applicant’s application for non‑refoulement claim is set out in the Court’s Decision.  I shall briefly state the proceedings below.

1)   The applicant is an illegal immigrant and she applied to the Director of Immigration for non-refoulement.  The Director rejected her application.

2)   She appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”).  The Board refused her appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.

3)   She applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision and her application was heard before this Court.

4)   This Court refused to grant leave to the applicant for her intended application because she had not been able to show that her intended appeal had reasonable prospect of success.

5)   Now she intends to appeal against the Court’s Decision and she is out of time.

3.  The Court of Appeal in Khan Mohammad Shadab [2018] HKCA 897, CAMP 75/2018, 4 December 2018 at §10 held:

“10. In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the Court will have regard to: (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: see: Chee Fei Ming v. Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene [2015] 4 HKC 134; and also Wong Yuk Man v Ng Leung Sing & Anor [2016] HKCU 157 (HCMP 3217/2015, 22.01.2016).”

4.  In her affirmation in support of this application, the applicant has not set out the grounds of her appeal.

5.  In the circumstances, she has not been able to show that there is reasonable prospect of success in her intended appeal.

6.  This Court therefore refuses to grant her extension of time to appeal and her application is also dismissed.