Re Jamal

HCAL 2457/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1776

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2457 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

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 8 May 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 2 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 for the reason that he considered that the Court’s decision was not fair for him.

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 and, after further investigation into the facts of the case, the Adjudicator found that he had not made out a case for non-refoulement protection, the reasons being that there was no evidence to suggest that he was a popular leader for BNP in the area of Doraboti; there was no evidence that he was targeted by AL members; there was no evidence for him to say that there were cases filed against him for the large scale public meeting in 2014; and he had made contradictory statements [21].  The references are those in the Board’s Decision.

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.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.