Re Khatun Mst Mukti

HCAL 1188/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1314

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1188 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

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

Date of Decision: 20 May 2021

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.The applicant filed a summons dated 28 April 2021 for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision as described below.

2.The applicant is a Bangladeshi national. She arrived in Hong Kong in 2015 as a domestic helper. Her employment contract was terminated. She overstayed and surrendered to the Immigration Department on 31 March 2016. She lodged her non-refoulement claim to the Immigration Department.

3.By Notice of Decision dated 26 April 2017 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director rejected her claim and she appealed to the Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”). The Board considered her appeal and by its Decision dated 22 June 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”), it refused her appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

4.The applicant applied to the High Court for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. Having considered the merits of the case, by Form Call-1 dated 1 March 2021 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court found that there was no merit in her proposed judicial review. The Court dismissed her application for leave to apply for judicial review.

5.In her affirmation in support of this application, the applicant said that she did not get the Court’ decision before and that she was sick and therefore could not apply to appeal in time.

6.The Court’s Form Call-1 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 two days after the date of the letter in the ordinary course of the post, as it was not returned unserved. Also, she has not submitted any medical evidence to prove that she was ill and was therefore unable to take out the application for the intended appeal.

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

8.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.

9.The Board had given its reasons for its decision. It found that the applicant’s evidence could not be relied upon because she was not a witness of truth. Therefore, she has no factual basis in support of her claim.

10.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.

11.She was unable to say in what respect the Court’s decision was wrong in her affirmation. The reason in paragraph 5 above will not assist her.

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

13.I dismiss her application.