Re Khondoiker Mosammat Rumana

HCAL 643/2019

[2022] HKCFI 2985

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 643 OF 2019

_____________

_____________

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

Date of Decision:  13 October 2022

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

The application

1.The applicant is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission 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 19 August 2022 (“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 on 14 September 2022 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision.

5.In her affirmation in support of her application, she said the Court’s decision is reached unfairly without allowing her an opportunity to clarify her case and situation in her country. She is illiterate and is unaware of the time limit for appeal. Also, 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 reason, I decide to determine this application without an oral hearing.

7.The Court shall consider the factors as set out in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam [2016] 2 HKC 393 at para. 27(3) in considering if extension of time should be extended: (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 is less than two weeks. I shall first consider the merits of the case.

8.In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, the Court of Appeal held 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 her ex-husband Rassel Ali Molla (“Rassel”) and her uncle Khondoiker Anwar (alias, Chand). Both of them were supporters of Awami League (“AL”).

10.The Director refused her application because her claim was unsubstantiated. She appealed to the Board.

11.The Board observed that the applicant failed to produce any objective evidence for her claim, such as documents showing her father’s legal title over the disputed land [21]. It considered the internal credibility of the applicant’s evidence and the country of origin information. The Board noted that Bangladesh had taken steps to prevent violence against women [31], that the applicant never sought help from the authorities [32], and that there was no evidence of state involvement in both disputes [33]. Further, the Board found that Rassel and Chand would not inflict any harms on her for the land since her father, the claimed legitimate owner of the land, was still alive [45]-[46]. In this premise, the Board found that the applicant’s claim lacked credibility. The references refer to the Board’s Decision.

12.The Board dismissed her claim for the reason that it did not accept her evidence on the facts of the case. There is nothing for her to clarify for this Court. According to the Court’s record, the Court’s decision was sent to the applicant on 19 August 2022 without return from the Post Office.

13.The applicant has not been able to say in what respect had the Board erred in its Decision or this Court had committed any error in the assessment of the case. There is, therefore, no realistic prospect of success in her intended appeal.

14.In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for her appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss her application.

The applicant was unrepresented.