Re Jit Bahadur Lama

HCAL 421/2018

[2019] HKCFI 1295

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 421 OF 2018

___________________

___________________

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

1.This is the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against the Interlocutory Order dated 17 April 2019 (“the Interlocutory Order”), by which Deputy Judge J. Lam refused to grant him extension of time for taking out the application for leave for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 13 May 2015 (“the Board’s Decision”).  Accordingly, his application for leave for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed as well.

2.His application is based upon the following brief factual background:

(1)   he came to Hong Kong illegally on 9 February 2007 and was arrested by police;

(2)   he raised a non-refoulement claim on 8 August 2008;

(3)   the Director of Immigration rejected his claim by reference to the risk of torture, the risk of persecution, the risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (BOR 3 risk) and further, the risk of violation of the right to life (BOR 2 risk);

(4)   he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claim Petition Office (the Board) and the Board refused his appeal on 13 May 2015;

(5)   he applied for leave for judicial review of the Board’s Decision, but his application was out of time;

(6)   he appeared before Deputy Judge J. Lam, who considered whether time should be extended for him to proceed with his application;

(7)   having considered the merits of his case, the Deputy Judge, by the Interlocutory Order, refused to grant him the extension of time because his application was devoid of merits;

(8)   in the Interlocutory Order, it was directed that if the applicant wished to appeal against the Interlocutory Order, the applicant had to apply for leave and the Court would then consider whether a hearing would be necessary to dispose of the application; and

(9)   this is the application that the applicant had made.

3.In his written submission in support of this application, the applicant has set out the legal principles of high standard of fairness, which should be applied to the assessment of his case; the legal principle of Wednesbury reasonableness and that the decision should be set aside if it was made inconsistent with such legal principles.

4.There is no problem that the court should apply those legal principles above to the applicant’s case.  But the applicant has not shown any error in the Board’s Decision.

5.It is obvious that the applicant has not been able to show that he has a reasonable prospect of success in his appeal against the Court’s Decision.

6.In the circumstances, it is not necessary to have a hearing for the determination of the applicant’s application.  I refuse to grant him leave to appeal against the Court’s Decision to the Court of Appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

The applicant acted in person