Re Md Akbar

HCAL 1767/2018

[2020] HKCFI 795

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1767 OF 2018

___________________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 20 December 2019

Date of Decision: 12 June 2020

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

The application

1.The applicant is an illegal immigrant and he lodged a non‑refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director rejected his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement claims Petition Office (“the Board”). Having considered his evidence, the Board, by its Decision dated 6 August 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected his appeal and confirmed 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. He had appeared before this Court. By Order dated 19 September 2019 (“the Court’s decision”), I refused to grant him leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision for the reason that there was no reasonable prospect of success in his intended judicial review.

3.The applicant intends to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Court’s decision. However, he is out of time under Order 53, rule 3(4), RHC. The deadline for him to appeal is 3 October 2019. He took out a summons dated 29 October 2019 for time extension for his appeal.

4.A hearing was fixed for him to attend court for his application on 20 December 2019.

The applicant’s affirmation

5.The applicant filed an affirmation in support of his application. In his affirmation he submitted that he was given the chance to clarify his case and situation in his own country. My decision heavily relied on country of origin information and he was not aware of time limit for his appeal.

Discussion

6.I shall now consider his application on paper.

7.The Court of Appeal in Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702 28 June 2019 held

“19. The prospect of success of the intended appeal is important; the court will not grant extension of time for a hopeless appeal to be pursued.”

8.The applicant had appeared before me. He was given the opportunity of clarifying his case before me. He had no comments on the Board’s finding and comments. The fact that he was not aware of time limit for his appeal is not a good reason.

9.The applicant is unable to show what error this Court had committed in reaching the Court’s decision.

10.In the circumstances, I find that the applicant is unable to show that he has a reasonable prospect of success in his intended appeal against my decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

The applicant, acting in person, absent.