Re Chua Berbina Gavino
|
HCAL 2695/2018 [2021] HKCFI 2621 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2695 OF 2018 _____________
_____________ Before: Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers Date of Decision: 23 September 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 27 May 2021 (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 23 August 2021 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision. 5.In her affidavit in support of her application, she said that she did not receive the Court’s decision. Discussion 6.Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reasons, I decide to determine this application without an oral hearing. 7.In AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015, §27, the Court of Appeal held that for extension of time for making the application for leave to apply for judicial review, the Court has to consider (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted. 8.In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, the Court of Appeal held:
9.The Board, having considered her evidence, rejected her appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision. The Board found that the acts as the applicant alleged did not attain the degree of severity in pain or suffering within the definition of torture [59]; that the state was not involved [63 & 73]; that state protection was available to her [83]; that internal relocation was an option open to her [93]; that there was no evidence to show that she was subjected to BOR 2 risk if she returned to the Philippines [98] and that she was not subjected to Persecution risk [107]. 10.Her reasons in support of her application do not assist her. 11.The applicant has not raised any viable ground to show either that the Board was in error or that the Court was in error. Therefore, she has no realistic prospect 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
Rajwinder Singh and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Cucun Cunayah and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Re Siti Choiriyah and Another
Re Nur Azizah
Re Mondal Sumitra Rani
Re Pervin Jahanara
Re Chauhan Manish
Re Wiji Lestariasih
Re Nur Afnika
Re Eka Mugiasih
Re Shamim
Re Shahid Muhammad
Re Akther Samima
Re Siti Aisyah Tosir
Re Pham Thi Dinh
Re Mahmoon Asjad
Re Raksaboondasri Charoenporn
Re Pham Thi Thuy
Re Islam Sheikh Nazrul
Re Bernadeta Seran
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 2695/2018