Re Md Johirul Islam
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 1750/2018 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 2 July 2020.
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 16 May 2017 (“ the Board’s Decision ”), rejected his appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decisions.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case
|
HCAL 1750/2018 [2020] HKCFI 1381 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1750 OF 2018 ____________________
____________________ Before: Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers Date of Hearing: 8 November 2019 Date of Decision: 2 July 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 16 May 2017 (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected his appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decisions. 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. However, his application was beyond three months from the date of the Board’s Decision and therefore was out of time. He had appeared before this Court. By Order dated 5 September 2019 (“the Court’s decision”), I refused to grant him extension of time for applying for 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.In the Court’s decision, this Court had also made an order that since the decision was an interlocutory order, the applicant had to apply for leave to this Court if he wanted to appeal against that interlocutory order. This is the applicant’s application. Discussion 4.The applicant appeared before me and he said that he understood my decision. I had asked him if he could state what error I have committed in coming to my decision. He was unable to identify any error. 5.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 appeared in person. |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 1750/2018