Re Sioangan Wilna Pagao and Another

HCAL 2604/2018

[2021] HKCFI 2089

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2604 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.The applicants are mother and son and they are illegal immigrants. They applied for non-refoulement protection to the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director refused their application and they appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office. By its Decision dated 9 November 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”), the Board rejected their appeal.

2.The applicants filed Form 86 on 19 November 2018 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.  By Order dated 22 April 2021 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court refused to grant leave to the applicants for their judicial review for the reason that they did not have reasonable chance of success in their intended application.

3.The applicants filed a summons dated 25 May 2021 for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision. In the affidavit in support of their application, they said that they did not receive the Court’s decision.  The Court’s decision was sent to the applicant on 22 April 2021 by post and the letter was not returned.

4.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.

5.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].”

6.The Board had considered the Director’s Decision.  It rejected their appeal on the grounds as per paragraph 55 of the Board’s Decision as follows:

i. On the totality of the evidence, the Board was not satisfied that either the applicant or her son faced a real chance of harm of any nature in the Philippines.

ii. The applicant changed her evidence in the course of investigation by the Board, which found her not a witness of truth.

iii. The Board had doubt about the character of her grandfather as she described.

iv. The Board did not believe that she had converted to Muslim; that she and Raja had gone through a formal Muslim marriage; that she had genuine and ongoing commitment to the Islamic faith; that she would continue to have Muslim belief in the future wherever she would be and that she intended her son to follow the Islamic faith.

7.The Board had considered the applicants’ case separately.  There are no underlying matters in this case which may show that there may be grounds specific to the minor son’s claim which had not been adequately advanced to the Board on his behalf because of the lack of legal representation.

8.There is no evidence to show that the Board erred in its finding of the facts or the application of the law to their case.

9.Their reasons in her affidavit in support of this application do not assist them.

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

11.I dismiss their application.

The applicants were unrepresented.