SRI WAHYUNINGSIH

HCAL 465/2019

[2022] HKCFI 626

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 465 OF 2019 

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

The application

1.  The applicant is an illegal immigrant and he lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (the “Director”). The Director, by his Decisions, rejected his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”). Having considered his evidence, the Board, by its Decision (the “Board’s Decision”), rejected his 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 Form CALL-1 dated 21 January 2022 (the “Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed her application for the reason that there is no realistic prospect of success in her intended judicial review.

4.  The applicant filed a summons on 8 February 2022 for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time.

5.  In her affirmation in support of her application, she said that she did not understand English and was not aware of the court procedure in respect of time limit for appeal.

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. The delay of 5 days is not significant. Nevertheless, I shall consider the merits of the case.

8.  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].”

9.  The applicant claimed that if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by the money lender and the enemies of Mr. Sarno, her ex-husband. 

10.  The Director rejected her claim for the reason that the alleged risks were not substantiated. She appealed to the Board.

11.  The applicant did not appear before the Board and she did not respond to the Board’s notice asking her for an explanation of her absence. The Board then proceeded to assess her appeal and found against her.

12.  The applicant is unable to set out any valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision. Nor can she point out any error on the part of this Court in the assessment of her application.

13.  There is no realistic prospect of success in her intended appeal. I therefore refuse to extend time for her to appeal and dismiss her application.

The applicant was unrepresented.