Re Yuli Ifa Kusrini

HCAL 2294/2018

[2022] HKCFI 3456

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2294 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

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

Date of Decision:  24 November 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 30 September 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 28 October 2022 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision. In her affirmation in support of her application she said she did not receive the Court’s decision. According to the record, the Court’s decision was sent to the applicant on 30 September 2022.

Discussion

5.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.

6.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 deadline for her appeal is 14 October 2022. The applicant is late for 13 days. I shall now consider the merits of her case.

7.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].”

8.The applicant claimed that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her husband.

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

10.Having considered the evidence, the Board made the following findings. At the outset, the Board accepted that the applicant had a boyfriend in Hong Kong. However, it rejected the material aspects of her claim. In particular, the Board attached no credence to the applicant’s assertion that her husband threatened to kill her because of her relationship with her boyfriend [20]. It also rejected the applicant’s claim that her husband demanded money from her as her evidence was inherently inconsistent [21]-[24]. It further rejected the applicant’s inconsistent versions of her mother’s death [25]-[27]. As to the alleged domestic violence, the Board observed that the applicant was unable to provide the details [30]-[35]. It also noted that her evidence on her husband’s harassment and threats in mid-2008 was vague and inconsistent [36]-[41].

11.In light of the unresolved inconsistencies, the Board concluded that she was not a victim of domestic violence and refused to accept her claimed fear of harm from her husband. In addition, the Board noticed that her husband had ceased contact with her since 2014. It therefore found that her husband had no on-going adverse interest on her [50]. The references refer to the Board’s Decision.

12.The applicant has not been able to raise any valid reason to show that she has a realistic prospect of success in her intended appeal.

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

The applicant was unrepresented.