Re Manganaan Sixta Zamudio

HCAL 610/2018

[2019] HKCFI 2335

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 610 OF 2018

___________________

___________________

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

Introduction

1.The applicant is an illegal immigrant and she lodged a non‑refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). By Decisions respectively dated 12 July 2016 and 24 May 2017, the Director rejected her application and she appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non‑Refoulement claims Petition Office (“the Board”).  Having considered her evidence, the Board, by its Decision dated 27 June 2017 (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected her appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decisions.

2.Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the applicant filed Form 86 dated 11 April 2018 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.  However, she had failed to file her application within 3 months of the date of the Board’s Decision.  She had appeared before Deputy Judge J. Lam, who by Order dated 30 July 2019, refused to grant her extension of time to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.  Accordingly, her application was dismissed.  The Deputy Judge had given the reasons for rejecting her application in Form Call‑1 dated 30 July 2019 (“the Deputy Judge’s decision”).

3.The applicant intends to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Deputy Judge’s decision.  She has taken out a summons dated 6 August 2019 for leave to appeal.

The applicant’s affirmation

4.The applicant filed an affirmation in support of her application.  In her affirmation, she stated that her life was in danger in her country.  She wanted to take out this application in order to stay longer in Hong Kong.

Discussion

5.Those reasons do not constitute valid reasons in support of her application.  She has not stated in what respect Deputy Judge J. Lam had committed any error in making his decision refusing extension of time for her to apply for leave for judicial review.

6.The applicant therefore has not identified the reasons to show that she had realistic prospect of success in her intended appeal.

7.In the circumstances, I dismiss her application.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acted in person