Re Siti Maesaroh Sukari

HCAL 611/2018

[2019] HKCFI 1438

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 611 OF 2018

___________________

___________________

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

1.This is the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against the decision by Deputy Judge J Lam dated 30 April 2019 refusing her application for extension of time for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 22 September 2017.

2.The factual background is set out in the decision of the court by way of Form Call-1 dated 30 April 2019 (“the Court’s Decision”).  I shall briefly state the proceedings below.

1)   The applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim to the Director of Immigration Department (“the Director”).

2)   Her application was rejected for the reason that her claim was unsubstantiated.

3)   She appealed to the Board and attended a hearing before the Adjudicator.

4)   Having considered her evidence, the Board refused her appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decisions.

5)   She applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision, with the Director as the interested party.

6)   However, her application was out of time.  The Deputy Judge had considered whether time should be extended for her to make her application for leave.

7)   Having considered the merits of her case and other relevant factors, the Deputy Judge refused to grant her extension of time.

8)   Since the Order the Deputy Judge made was an interlocutory Order, the Deputy Judge directed that if the applicant intended to appeal against his Order, she should apply for leave and submit written submissions to the court.  The Court would then consider whether the application should be dealt with on paper or there should be a hearing.

9)   She intended to appeal against the Court’s Decision and this is her application.

3.In her affirmation in support of her application, the applicant said that the application is to enable her to stay in Hong Kong longer because her life was in danger in Indonesia.  She did not want to go back to Indonesia.

4.I do not accept the reasons above show that she has a reasonable prospect of success in her intended appeal.  She has not been able to state any reason why she considered the Court’ Decision was wrong or in error.

5.In the circumstances, I dismiss her application on paper.

The Applicant appeared in person