Re Nguyen Thi Chung

HCAL 2688/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1937

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2688 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.The applicant filed a summons dated 7 June 2021 for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Court’s decision, which, in fact, is for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision as described below.

2.The applicant is a citizen of Vietnam.  She had come to Hong Kong illegally on a number of occasions.  She was arrested, convicted, sentenced and repatriated.  The last time she came was on 10 October 2014.  She surrendered to the Immigration Department.  She lodged her non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department by written representation dated 20 October 2014.

3.By Notice of Decision dated 23 January 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 18 October 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 Order dated 17 May 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 because someone else had taken the court’s letter.  Also, she said that there is a good ground of appeal, which is not necessary to be considered at this stage.

6.By virtue of Order 32, rules 11(1) and 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 Decision.  It rejected her appeal on the grounds as follows, references being those of the Board’s Decision:

(1) it had taken into consideration of her previous history of coming to Hong Kong illegally and her intention of staying in Hong Kong for a long period of time [78];

(2) her evidence was inconsistent and inherently implausible under the circumstances she described and it came to the conclusion that her story of borrowing money from the creditor was not true [79];

(3) having considered the reasons [80], the Board did not accept that she was a victim of domestic violence imposed by her husband [81];

(4) the Board concluded that her story of the loan and domestic violence was fabricated by her for her claim [82-86].

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.The applicant’s grounds are not helpful.  If she has any ground for the appeal, this is her opportunity of setting them out in this application as the Court has to consider her chance of success.

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.

The applicant was unrepresented.