Barbin Sheryrll Peralta v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 684/2019

[2023] HKCFI 1369

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 684 OF 2019

_____________

_____________

_______________

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 8 July 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.In her affirmation filed on 10 May 2023, the applicant said that she did not know that she had to inform that she had changed her address. She only came to know the Court’s decision from the Immigration Department.

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 23 July 2022. The applicant is late for more than 9 months. 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.Her claim was made on the basis that, if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her ex-boyfriend, Leo.

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 considered that her evidence was not credible; state protection would be available to her and internal relocation was a reasonable alternative.

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