Re Brar Simranjeet Singh

HCAL 1255/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1385

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1255 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

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

Date of Decision: 26 May 2021

_____________

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”). By Notice of Decision dated 5 February 2016 and Notice of Further Decision dated 19 April 2017, the Director rejected his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”).  Having considered his evidence, the Board, by its Decision dated 17 February 2017 and its 2^nd Decision dated 15 November 2017, rejected his appeal and affirmed 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 Decisions.  By Order dated 15 March 2021 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court refused to grant him leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decisions 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) of the RHC.  He filed a summons dated 14 April 2021 for extension of time for his appeal and adducing new ground of appeal.

4.In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant said that the Court’s order was unfair.  He was not allowed to clarify his case.  Being an illiterate and litigant in person, he does not know the legal procedures and the time limit for appeal.  He asked for a chance to explain and extension of time to appeal.

Discussion

5.Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reason, I decide to determine this application without an oral hearing.

6.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].”

7.The Court had in its decision, set out the reasons why it refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decisions.

8.The Board simply rejected his evidence on the facts of his case.  In other words, the applicant has no factual basis in support of his claim.

9.The Court had considered the grounds for his application for leave to apply for judicial review and dealt with them in its decision.

10.The Court had considered the Board’s Decisions and found that they were without fault.

11.He has no valid reason in support of his application.

12.In the circumstances, I find that the applicant is unable to show that he has any reasonable prospect of success in his intended appeal against the Court’s decision.  I refuse to extend time for his appeal.  I also refuse to grant leave to the applicant to adduce new ground of appeal as he has not stated his new grounds in his affirmation.  Accordingly, I dismiss his application.