Re Diocares Marilou Bangsoy

Read the full judgment text of HCAL 2504/2018 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 30 January 2023.

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.

Cited by 1 case

Case No.HCAL 2504/2018[2023] HKCFI 164
Court
High Court CFI
Date30 Jan 2023
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCAL 2504/2018

[2023] HKCFI 164

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2504 OF 2018

____________________

RE:      DIOCARES MARILOU BANGSOY Applicant

____________________

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

Date of Decision:  30 January 2023

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

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 14 November 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 30 December 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 within 14 days. According to the record, the Court’s decision was re-sent to the applicant on 22 December 2022.

5.In the circumstances, the applicant’s application is within time and leave should be given to the applicant to file her notice of appeal.  I so order.

  (K. W. Lung)
  Deputy High Court Judge

The applicant was unrepresented.