RE VALDEZ EVELYN OCHOADA

HCAL 1301/2018

[2020] HKCFI 799

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1301 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”).  By Decisions respectively dated 1 September 2016 and 31 July 2017, the Director rejected her application and she appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement claims Petition Office (“the Board”).  Having considered her evidence, the Board, by its Decision dated 26 June 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected her appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decisions.

2.  Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court, the applicant filed Form 86 dated 6 July 2018 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.  She had appeared before me.  Having considered her evidence and submission in court, by Form Call-1 dated 16 April 2019, I dismissed her application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.  The applicant intends to appeal to the Court of Appeal against my decision.  But she is out of time. By summons dated 5 July 2019, she applied for leave to appeal out of time.

The applicant’s affirmation

4.  The applicant filed an affirmation in support of her application. In her affirmation, she stated that she did not receive the Court’s Form Call‑1.

Discussion

5.  The Court of Appeal in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015 held that the court has to consider the applicant’s merit for her application.

6.  I asked the applicant if she understood the Form Call-1.  She said she did not receive it and she did not know the contents.  I therefore explained the contents of Form Call-1 to her.  She said that she had no reason to appeal against it.  She simply wanted more time to handle her own business with her husband in the Philippines before she returned to the Philippines.

7.  This reason does not constitute valid reason in support of her application.

8.  The applicant is therefore unable to show that she has merits in her intended appeal.  Extension of time should not be granted.

9.  In the circumstances, I dismiss her application.