Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1753/2018

[2021] HKCFI 222

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1753 OF 2018

_____________________

Re:

Raja Ibrar Hussain

Applicant

_____________________

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge P. LI in Chambers

Date of Hearing:	8 December 2020
Date of Decision:	2 February 2021

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

1.The applicant is a Pakistan national. He came to Hong Kong on 21/3/2008 illegally through China. He was arrested by the police on 14/1/2009. He filed a torture claim on 16/1/2009 the appeal of which was rejected by the TCAB on 9/5/2014.

2.Meanwhile, he lodged the non‑refoulement claim on 22/11/2013 which is the subject matter of this case. The Director rejected his claim on 7/1/2016 [1]. The TCAB refused his appeal on 17/2/2017.

3.In March 2017, the Director invited the applicant to file further evidence in relation to BOR 2. He did not respond. On 13/4/2017, the Director further rejected the claim based on BOR 2. The TCAB refused his appeal on 17/8/2018.[2]

4.On 27/8/2018, the applicant applied for leave for judicial review of the decision of the TCAB. He disagreed with the decision of the TCAB. He did not point out any error in the decision.

5.Deputy Judge Lung found that the TCAB had considered the merits of the appeal against the further decision of the Director. The applicant failed to show that there was any reasonable prospect of success. Leave was refused on 10/6/2020.

6.The applicant filed a summons on 5/10/2020 for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy Judge Lung [3]. He was more than three months out of time.

7.In his affirmation in support of the application for extension of time, the applicant indicated that his life was in danger in Pakistan. He requested this court to grant him leave so that he could apply for legal aid. He asked for a hearing.

8.A hearing was scheduled on 8/12/2020. The applicant did not turn up. The notice of hearing was sent to his updated address by registered post and ordinary post. He did not claim the notice by registered mail. However, there was no return of the notice by ordinary mail. This court thus considered his leave application on paper.

9.In considering whether to extend time for appeal against the refusal of leave to apply for judicial review, this court will take into account: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted.[4]

10.The applicant is out of time for more than 3 months. There is no explanation whatsoever. I have carefully considered the reasons given by Deputy Judge Lung. I agree with his judgment. The applicant fails to point out any error in the judgment.

11.In the circumstances, I dismiss his application.

	(P. Li)
	Deputy High Court Judge

The applicant, acting in person, was absent.

[1] On claims based on BOR 3 and persecution risk.

[2] The applicant filed his notice of appeal to the TCAB on 20/10/2017. Late filing was refused as the applicant was late for five and a half months. In any event, the adjudicator rejected the appeal as there was no evidence of any risk based on BOR 2 ground.

[3] Deputy Judge Lung has ceased sitting as deputy judge.

[4] Jagg Singh [2020] HKCA 844, §10.

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Jagg Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Another

Cited by 2 cases

Other judgments that cite this case

Raja Ibrar Hussain v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office