NAMAGEMBE ADELLA

HCAL 1590/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1929

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1590 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

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

Date of Decision: 14 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 Decisions.

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 realistic prospect of success in her intended application.

4.  The applicant filed a summons dated 27 August 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 in the usual time.

5.  In her affirmation in support of her application, she said that she did not receive the Court’s decision on time.

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:

“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 considered the applicant’s evidence [53-66] and, for the reasons set out in the Board’s Decision, came to the conclusion:

“67. The Claimant is lacking in credibility and I am not persuaded even to the low standard required that the Claimant suffered any threats at the hands of her three brothers-in-law whilst in Uganda.”

9.  The applicant has not been able to say in what respect had the Board erred in its Decision.

10.  Her ground in support of this application is not valid ground to show that she has any reasonable chance of success in her intended appeal.

11.  In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for her appeal.  Accordingly, I dismiss her application.

The applicant was unrepresented.