Re Aktar Mst Ruma
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 2452/2018 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 5 July 2021.
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”). Having considered her evidence, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected her appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 4 cases
|
HCAL 2452/2018 [2021] HKCFI 1758 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2452 OF 2018 _____________
_____________ Before: Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers Date of Decision: 5 July 2021 _____________ 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”). Having considered her evidence, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected her appeal and affirmed 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. 3.By Order dated 4 June 2020 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed her application for the reason that there was no reasonable prospect of success in her intended application. 4.The applicant filed a summons dated 22 June 2020 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision. The file was misplaced and the application has not been dealt with within the usual time. 5.In her affirmation in support of her application, she said that she did not receive the Court’s letter with the Court’s decision late and she did not know the reason why it was delivered late; she had to seek her friend’s advice as she is not conversant with the Court’s procedures and she had no money to engage a lawyer for herself; that she believed she had merits in her appeal and there would be other grounds as well; that she is a genuine asylum seeker and she is lucky that she was able to leave her country and her problems still exist in her country. Discussion 6.Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reason, I decide to determine this application without an oral hearing. 7.In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, the Court of Appeal held:
8.The Board considered the applicant’s evidence and, for the reasons set out in the Board’s Decision came to the conclusion below; the references are those in the Board’s Decision.
9.The applicant had, upon the Court’s request, appeared before me and she confirmed that she had a fair chance of telling her facts before the immigration officer and before the Board. 10.The applicant has not been able to say in what respect had the Board erred in its Decision. 11.Her grounds in support of this application are not valid grounds to show that she has any reasonable chance of success in her intended appeal. 12.In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for her appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss her application.
The applicant was unrepresented. |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 2452/2018