Re Shah Yasir
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 1215/2018 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 13 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 Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.
Cited by 2 cases
|
HCAL 1215/2018 [2021] HKCFI 1652 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1215 OF 2018 _____________
_____________ Before: Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers Date of Decision: 13 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 dated 28 June 2018 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision. 3.By Order dated 1 March 2021 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that there was no reasonable chance of success in the applicant’s intended application. 4.The applicant filed a summons dated 26 March 2021 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision. 5.In his affirmation in support of his application, he said that he did not receive the Court’s decision. According to the court’s record, the letter was returned from the Post Office. After clarification with the Immigration Department, the Court’s decision was sent to the applicant again on 12 April 2021. This letter has not been returned undelivered. 6.To date, the applicant is out of time to file his Notice of Appeal, his application for appeal out of time will be dealt with. Discussion 7.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. 8.The Board had considered his appeal. It rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision for the reasons below. References are those in the Board’s Decision.
9.There is no reason from him as to in what respect has the Board erred in its decisions. 10.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. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.
The applicant was unrepresented. |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 1215/2018