RE TOMAD EVA BALABAG

HCAL 2561/2018

[2020] HKCFI 1771

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2561 OF 2018

__________________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.  The applicant is a Filipino national. She arrived in Hong Kong on 12 August 2009 as a visitor. She overstayed and was arrested by police. She lodged a non‑refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 18 July 2013.

2.  The Director rejected her claim and she appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”).  The Board considered her appeal and by its decision dated 5 October 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”), it refused her appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.

3.  On 14 November 2018, the applicant applied to the High Court for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

4.  Having considered the merits of the case, by Form Call‑1 dated 11 September 2019 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court found that there was no merit in her proposed judicial review and dismissed her application.

5.  The applicant had taken out a summons dated 2 October 2019 for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision and to advance a new sole ground of appeal.

6.  In her affirmation in support of this application, the applicant said that her application for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed for want of prosecution.  This is not right as her application was dismissed for without merits after a hearing.

7.  In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702 28 June 2019, the Court of Appeal held that the Court has to consider the prospect of the intended appeal in order to determine whether time should be extended.

8.  The applicant appeared before me.  She said that she was not satisfied with my decision because she wanted to stay in Hong Kong.

9.  The applicant was unable to say in what respect the Court’s decision was wrong.

10.  Since the applicant has no reason to appeal, I decline to extend time for her intended appeal.  The request for leave to advance a new sole ground of appeal is out of the question.

11.  I dismiss her application.