Re Bal Swaran Singh
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 2573/2018 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 5 July 2021.
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 Decisions (“the Board’s Decisions”), rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decisions.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 4 cases
|
HCAL 2573/2018 [2021] HKCFI 1762 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2573 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 Decisions (“the Board’s Decisions”), 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. 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 8 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 was late in receiving the court’s letter with the Court’s decision; that he did not understand the court’s procedures; that he had no money to get legal representation and he had to obtain his friend’s advice; that the immigration officer and the adjudicator were ignorant of the real situations in India and they are invited to visit India to understand the situation themselves; that he was lucky to have escaped from India and settle in Hong Kong; that he wished to have a place for his settlement here and that all the facts he had given were true. 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:
8.The Board considered the applicant’s evidence. It refused his appeals because it found that he was not a reliable witness and that there was no evidence to support his claim for the reasons below [18]. The references in brackets are those in the Board’s Decision.
9.The Court had considered the applicant’s grounds for his application. The applicant had also appeared before the Court. Upon enquiry by the Court, the applicant confirmed that he was able to speak freely and tell his stories fully before the adjudicator. It is obvious that the Board rejected all the significant facts in support of his claim. As such, he has no factual basis for his application. 10.The applicant has not been able to say in what respect had the Board erred in its Decision. 11.The Court had considered his reasons in support of his application and had dealt with them in its decision. 12.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. 13.In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for his appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.
The applicant was unrepresented. |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 2573/2018