RE SUMI

HCAL 1138/2018

[2021] HKCFI 800

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 1138 OF 2018

_____________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  The applicant filed a summons on 12 March 2021 for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision.

2.  The applicant is a Bangladeshi national.  She came to Hong Kong on 14 January 2014 to work as a domestic helper.  Her employment contract was prematurely terminated. She overstayed illegally. She was arrested by police on 17 July 2014. On 20 July 2014, she lodged her non-refoulement claim with the Director of the Immigration Department (“the Director”). 

3.  By two Notices of Decision respectively dated 18 March 2015 and 18 August 2017 (“the Director’s Decision and the Director’s Further Decision”), the Director refused her claim for the reason that it was not substantiated.

4.  She appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”).  The Board considered her appeal and by its Decision dated 22 March 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”), it refused her appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision and the Director’s Further Decision.

5.  On 20 June 2018, the applicant applied to the High Court for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

6.  Having considered the merits of the case, by Form Call-1 dated 23 February 2021 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court found that there was no merit in her proposed judicial review and dismissed her application. 

7.  In her affirmation in support of this application, the applicant said that she only received the Court’s decision on 11 March 2021.  She therefore asked for extension of time to appeal the Court’ decision because her life would be in danger if she returned to her country.     

8.  The Court’s decision was sent to the applicant’s last known address. Pursuant to Order 65, rule 5 (2A) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), it is deemed to have served on her on 15 March 2021 (Monday), two days after the date of the letter in the ordinary course of the post, as it was not returned unserved.

9.  She is out of time for filing her appeal.

10.  By virtue of Order 32, rule 11A(1)(a) of the RHC, I decide to deal with this application without an oral hearing.

11.  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.

12.  The Board had given its reasons for its decision. It said that it did not accept the applicant’s evidence that she would be subjected to any of the risks she claimed if she returned to Bangladesh.

13.  There is no evidence to show that the Board erred in its finding of the facts or the application of the law to her case.

14.  She was unable to say in what respect the Court’s decision was wrong in her affirmation.  Those reasons in paragraph 7 above will not assist her.

15.  Since there is no reasonable prosper of success in her intended appeal, I decline to extend time for her intended appeal.

16.  I dismiss her application.