Re Akter Tania

HCAL 2575/2018

[2020] HKCFI 796

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2575 OF 2018

___________________

___________________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 8 November 2019

Date of Decision: 12 June 2020

___________________

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/Non-Refoulement claims Petition Office (“the Board”). Having considered her evidence, the Board, by its Decision dated 5 November 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected her appeal and confirmed the Director’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. She had appeared before this Court. By Order dated 26 June 2019 (“the Court’s decision”), I refused to grant her leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision for the reason that there was no reasonable prospect of success in her intended judicial review.

3.The applicant intends to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Court’s decision. However, she is out of time under Order 53, rule 3(4), RHC. The deadline for her to appeal should be 10 July 2019. She took out a summons dated 2 September 2019 for time extension for her appeal.

4.A hearing was fixed for him to attend court for her application on 8 November 2019 and she attended the hearing.

The applicant’s affirmation

5.The applicant filed an affirmation in support of her application. In her affirmation she said that I had dismissed her application because she was absent. But in fact, I did not do so. In court, she said that she did not receive the Court’s decision because she was being detained in the detention centre of the Immigration Department. She also said that since she did not receive the Court’s decision, she did not know the reasons for the Court’s decision.

Discussion

6.Since she said that she did not understand the reasons as set out in the Court’s decision, I explained the reasons to her. She confirmed that she understood the reasons. She said that she had told the truth to the Adjudicator.  She did not want to go back to her country.

7.The Court of Appeal in Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702 28 June 2019 held

“19. The prospect of success of the intended appeal is important; the court will not grant extension of time for a hopeless appeal to be pursued.”

8.As she had not stated the grounds in support of her appeal, I asked her if she could state what error I had committed in coming to my decision. She said that she did not have reason to say that I was wrong.

9.In the circumstances, I find that the applicant is unable to show that she has a reasonable prospect of success in her intended appeal against my decision. Accordingly, I dismiss her application.

The Applicant appeared in person.