Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 68/2019

[2023] HKCFI 2115

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 68 OF 2019

_____________

BETWEEN

	Dinh Thi Chuyen	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:

25 August 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 13 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 filed on 23 June 2023, the applicant said that she did not have the means to obtain legal advice and time limit for her to appeal had passed and that she has good ground of appeal that is not necessary to be considered at this stage.

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 28 February 2023. The applicant is late for about 3 months and 3 weeks. 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 based upon her allegation that if refouled, she would be harmed or killed by her creditor Nguyen Thi Tuyet.

9.Having considered the evidence, the Board found that her evidence was not credible and she had failed to establish that she will be subjected to the real risks as claimed.

10.It is the applicant’s misconception that it is unnecessary for her to disclose her ground of appeal at the stage; quite the contrary. The Court cannot see that the applicant is able to raise any valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision. There is not any realistic prospect of success in her intended appeal.

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