Re Riniwati Surongku

HCAL 1207/2018

[2023] HKCFI 78

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1207 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

________________________

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 15 March 2021 (“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 13 December 2022 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision. In her affidavit in support of her application she said she is unrepresented and has no means to instruct a private lawyer.

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 29 March 2021. The applicant is late for about 1 year and 9 months. There is no good reason for her serious delay. 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 the creditor because she was unable to repay the loan she had drawn down.

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

10.The Board considered her evidence and found that all her alleged risks were speculative and not real. On this basis, the Board dismissed her appeal.

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.