RE NGUYEN THI LE HUONG AND ANOTHER

HCAL 1561/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1862

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1561 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

The application

1.  The applicants are illegal immigrants.  The 1^st applicant is the mother of the 2^nd appellant, on whose behalf and herself, she lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”).  The Director rejected their application and they appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”).  Having considered her evidence, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected their appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decisions.

2.  Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the applicants filed Form No. 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.  By Order dated 23 July 2020 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed their application for the reason that there was no realistic prospect of success in their intended application.

4.  The applicants filed a summons dated 18 August 2020 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision.  The file was misplaced and the application has not been dealt with in the usual time.

5.  In her affirmation in support of her application, the 1^st applicant said that the Court’s decision was not delivered to her on time.

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 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 considered the applicant’s evidence and found that her evidence was not reliable.  It rejected her evidence in support of her claim.  It also found that she would not have unfair trial if she returned to her own country; that state protection would be available to her and her child.  The Board further considered that internal relocation was not necessary to be considered because she alleged that the state would arrest her.  Since she would not have any substantial risk, the Board considered that this issue was irrelevant.

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

10.  Her grounds in support of this application are not valid grounds to show that they have any realistic chance of success in their intended appeal.

11.  In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for their appeal.  Accordingly, I dismiss their application.