RE VU THI SINH

HCAL 1271/2018

[2022] HKCFI 72

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1271 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”) and the Board dismissed her appeal (the “Board’s Decision”).

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 24 November 2021 (the “Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed her application for the reason that there was no realistic prospect of success in her intended application.

4.  The applicant filed a summons on 15 December 2021 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision.

5.  In her affirmation in support of her application, she repeated her story in support of her claim only.

Discussion

6.  Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reasons, I decide to determine this application without an oral hearing.

7.  In AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015, §27 the Court of Appeal held that for extension of time for making the application for leave to apply for judicial review, the Court has to consider (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted.

8.  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].”

9.  The delay is only about one week, which is not significant or serious. Nevertheless, I shall consider the merit of her application.

10.  The applicant claimed that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by the creditors because she was unable to repay the debt of about 700 million Vietnamese currency to her creditors.

11.  The Director rejected her claim for the reasons that the level of risk of being harmed or killed by her creditors if she returned to Vietnam was low; that state protection was available to her and that internal relocation was an option open to her.

12.  The Board, having considered her evidence, rejected her appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

13.  The applicant has not raised any viable ground to show that she has any realistic prospect of success in her intended appeal. Nor has she set out any reasons to show that the Court’s decision was in error. There is no realistic prospect in her intended appeal.

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