Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 2441/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1775

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2441 OF 2018

_____________

RE:

OHID MOHAMMAD

Applicant

_____________

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

Date of Decision: 5 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 23 January 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 14 July 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 without specifying any reason for his delay or any ground in support of his application.

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 case. It held the facts below; the references are those in the Board’s Decision.

(1) At the hearing the application was evasive in some of the answers [16].

(2) There was no reason that the AL people would be still looking for him [98].

(3) He was safe in Gazipur where he lived for 7 months [99]

(4) The government was not involved as he was able to obtain his passport and was able to leave and return to Bangladesh 4 times without any difficulty [101].

(5) The applicant would not be facing a high risk of being subjected to harm if he returned to Bangladesh [102].

(6) There was no evidence that the Bangladeshi government was involved in the dispute and state protection should be available to him [128 & 129].

(7) Internal relocation was an option open to him [136].

(8) There was no evidence in support of the fact that he would be subjected to the risks above [151, 158, 163, 178 & 184].

9.The applicant had attended before me and confirmed that he had had a fair interview with the immigration officer and a fair hearing before the adjudicator.

10.The applicant has not been able to say in what respect had the Board erred in its Decision. The Board had rejected his evidence on the facts of his claim.

11.He has not been able 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.