Re Rahayu Istiyati

HCAL 99/2022

[2022] HKCFI 2130

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 99 OF 2022

_____________

_____________

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

Date of Decision:  27 July 2022

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

The application

1.The applicant is an illegal immigrant by remaining in Hong Kong without permission and she lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (the “Director”). The Director, by his Decisions, 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 Form CALL-1 dated 16 May 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. The deadline for her to file her notice of appeal is within 14 days after such order[1].

4.The applicant filed a summons on 17 June 2022 for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time.

5.In her affirmation in support of her application, she said she was not aware of the time limit for her appeal and she did not know the court’s procedures.

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. 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 Wajib, her husband and Joni because she could not repay to Joni the money that Wajib owed him.

10.The Director found that her claim was not substantiated and, by 2 Decisions, one on BOR 3 risk and Persecution risk, the other on BOR 2 risk, refused her application. She appealed to the Board.

11.A hearing was fixed for her on 3 October 2017. Having consider the evidence [48-59], the Board finally came to the conclusion that her evidence was largely based on speculation and hearsay. The Board did not accept her factual evidence in relation to her being assaulted by her husband, or threatened by Joni. It further found that state protection was available to her and it would not be too harsh for her to relocate internally upon her return to Indonesia. There are government run and non-government run organizations in Indonesia that could provide support and services to women in need of protection from domestic violence [61]. On such bases, the Board dismissed her appeal. The references refer to the Board’s Decision.

12.The applicant has no 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 I dismiss her application.

The applicant was unrepresented.