Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 496/2023

[2023] HKCFI 2251

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 496 OF 2023

_____________

BETWEEN

	Hoang Thi Hong	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:

12 September 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”). Before the Board, she withdrew her appeal. The Board confirmed the Director’s decisions and she was repatriated to Vietnam on 20 June 2018.

2.On 9 May 2022, the applicant was arrested for remaining in Hong Kong illegally and she was convicted and sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment.

3.By a letter dated 9 September 2022, she applied to the Director for a subsequent claim. The Director, by the Decision dated 9 November 2022 (“the Director’s Decision”), rejected her application for the reason that although she had incurred new debts in Vietnam, her problem of being chased by the creditors remained the same problem in support of her previous claim and state protection and internal relocation were viable options for her.

4.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 Director’s Decision.

5.By Order dated 31 May 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.

6.In her affirmation filed on 8 August 2023, the applicant said that she was informed by her family members that it was dangerous for her to return to Vietnam as she would be killed and that she has no means to instruct a private lawyer to represent her.

Discussion

7.Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11, 11A and Order 53, rule 3(3) of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reason, I decide to determine this application on paper without an oral hearing.

8.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.

9.The deadline for her appeal is 15 June 2023. The applicant is late for about 7 weeks. I shall consider the merits of her case.

10.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].”

11.The applicant’s reasons in paragraph 6 are not valid reasons to challenge the Director’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.