Re Mehmood Qasir

HCAL 2388/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1764

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2388 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

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

Date of Decision: 2 July 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”).  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 (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected his appeal and affirmed 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.

3.By Order dated 2 June 2020 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that there was no reasonable prospect of success in his intended application.

4.The applicant filed a summons dated 19 June 2020 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision.  The file was misplaced and the application has not been dealt with within the usual time.

5.In his affirmation in support of his application, he applied for leave to appeal out of time for the reasons that he does not agree with the Court’s decision.

Discussion

6.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.

7.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].”

8.The Board considered the applicant’s evidence and, for the reasons set out in the Board’s Decision came to the conclusion below; the references are those in the Board’s Decision.

(1)  The applicant failed to establish, by evidence, that state protection was not available to him.  He simply had not attempted to seek state protection [152].

(2)  The applicant had not described any injuries or harm suffered by him.  The fight was soon stopped by senior people [153].

(3)  There was no evidence that the state was involved [155].

(4)  There was no real risk that the applicant would experience if he is returned to Pakistan [157].

(5)  Internal relocation was an option open to him [173].

(6)  The applicant was not qualified to claim protection of persecution [174].

(7)  The applicant was not qualified to claim BOR 2 risk protection [187].

9.The Court had invited the applicant to appear before it in order to give him a chance to address some of the issues, such as whether he had any complaint against the Board as he was not legally represented.  However, he failed to turn up at the hearing without any prior notice.  The Court therefore dealt with his application on the papers only.  Up till now, he has not explained why he was absent on the day of hearing.

10.The applicant has not been able to say in what respect had the Board erred in its Decision.

11.His grounds in support of this application are not valid grounds to show that he has any reasonable chance of success in his intended appeal.

12.In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for his appeal.  Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

The applicant was unrepresented.