Re Anis Puji Handayani

HCAL 2509/2018

[2022] HKCFI 3586

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2509 OF 2018

____________________

____________________

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

Date of Decision:  15 December 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 25 October 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 November 2022 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision. In her affirmation in support of her application she said she does not agree with the Court’s decision. She did not explain why she is late.

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 8 November 2022. The applicant is late for only 6 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, who is a domestic abuser.

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

10.Having considered the applicant’s evidence, the Board made the following findings.  First of all, the Board highlighted matters that affected the applicant’s credibility [30].  It found that several material aspects in the applicant’s claim were inherently inconsistent.  Secondly, in reviewing the country of origin information, the Board concluded that state protection was available to the victims of domestic violence [36]-[50].  Thirdly, it was pertinent to note that the applicant’s husband was a non-state actor and there was no evidence of state involvement [52]-[58].  In addition, the alleged injuries inflicted by the husband was with bare hands and the applicant sustained no injuries that attained a minimum level of severity [63]-[64].  Meanwhile, the husband’s conducts showed no real intention to cause serious harm or even kill her [67].  Besides, the applicant’s last contact with her husband was in around 2002 to 2005 and there was no evidence of further contact.  Thus, the Board found that the alleged risk of harm from her husband was speculative [68]-[69].  The references refer to the Board’s Decision.

11.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.

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

The applicant was unrepresented.