RE SAE-JAO MOEI-ON

HCAL 1822/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1891

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1822 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 10 July 2020 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed her application for the reason that there was no reasonable prospect of success in her intended application.

4.  The applicant filed a summons dated 27 July 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, she said that she still had problem with her enemy in her country and her life would be in danger if she returned to Thailand.

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, for the reasons set out in the Board’s Decision, came to the conclusion that it accepted that she had an abusive relationship with Boonchok and for this reason she divorced him.  However, it did not accept her evidence of the leaking of information of murder by the gangsters and that Boonchok had threatened her that he would kill her; that Boonchok would know if she returned to Thailand and even if he knew it, he would not be interested in her any longer, the divorce having taken place for about 16 years; that the chance would be quite remote that Boonchok would find her and harm her.  Even if Boonchok might have abused her, his acts were not of Convention reasons or the state’s act.  The Board had also considered that she could relocate herself in another place in Thailand if she returned and if she feared Boonchok would harm her.  See paragraphs 21-49.  The references are those in the Board’s Decision.

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 she has any reasonable chance of success in her intended appeal.

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