Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 70/2019

[2023] HKCFI 992

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 70 OF 2019

_____________

BETWEEN

	Nguyen Thi Hoang Nhung	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

_____________

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers

Date of Decision:

27 April 2023

_____________

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 23 February 2023 (“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.In her affirmation dated 28 March 2023, the applicant said “I would like to apply for extension of time to appeal for my case number HCAL 70/2019. I understand that there is a good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered at the stage of applying for leave for Judicial Review.”

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 on paper 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 11 March 2023. The applicant is late for 17 days. I shall 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’s claim was made on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed the creditor Bui Thi Ngoc Anh and Nguyen Van Chinh and their subordinates.

9.The Director of Immigration refused her application for the reason that her claim was not substantiated. She appealed to the Board.

10.Having considered the evidence, the Board found that the applicant’s creditors did not have the intention of harming or killing her; that it was a private monetary dispute; that state protection would be available to her and that internal relocation would be a viable option for her.

11.The applicant is under a misconception that the Court will not consider her reasons in support of her appeal. In view of the Board’s findings, it is difficult to envisage that the applicant has any valid grounds to challenge the Board’s Decision.

12.The applicant has not been able to raise any valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decisions. There is not any 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.