Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1230/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1753

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1230 OF 2018

_____________

RE:

YASIN IMRAH BT NURDIN

Applicant

_____________

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

Date of Decision: 13 July 2021

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.The applicant filed a summons dated 4 June 2021 for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision as described below.

2.The applicant is an Indonesian national. On 9 January 2013, she came to Hong Kong as a domestic helper. Her employment contract was terminated prematurely and she applied to stay as a visitor. Her application was allowed. But she overstayed. On 19 September 2013, she surrendered to the Immigration Department and by a written representation dated 12 May 2014, she lodged her non-refoulement claim.

3.By Notice of Decision dated 3 June 2016 and Notice of Further Decision dated 14 September 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 26 January 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”), it refused her appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decisions.

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 Order dated 15 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 receive the Court’s decision. The letter was sent to the applicant on 15 March 2021 and it was not returned from the Post Office.

6.By virtue of Order 32, rule 11A(1)(a) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), I decide to determine this application without an oral hearing.

7.In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, the Court of Appeal held:

“19. The prospect of success of the intended appeal is important: the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued, see Re Rahman Wasif [2019] HKCA 299 at [13]; Re Kpamou Gbotoi Bernard [2019] HKCA 168; and Re Irshad Muhammad [2018] HKCA 864 at [16].”

8.The Board had considered the Director’s Decisions. It rejected her appeal on the grounds as follows; references refer to the Board’s Decision:

(1) there was no risk of torture upon her return to Indonesia and therefore there was no merit in her application [26];

(2) there was evidence to support that state protection would be available to her upon her return to Indonesia [31];

(3) internal relocation was an option open to her [41-49];

(4) based upon the reasons above, her claim on the Torture risk, BOR 2 risk, BOR 3 risk and Persecution risk were rejected.

9.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.

10.Her reason in her affirmation in support of this application does not assist her.

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

12.I dismiss her application.