Re Mohammed Afsar Ali

HCAL 1809/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1931

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO  1809 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

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

Date of Decision: 19 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 9 July 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 on 27 August 2020 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision.  The file was misplaced and the application was not dealt with within the usual time.

5.In his affirmation in support of his application, he said that he did not receive the Court’s decision on time.

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 found that it did not accept the Certificate of Marriage produced by the applicant as a piece of reliable evidence [26]; that there was no evidence that a public official was involved [36]; there was no evidence of acquiescence on the part of the government [39]; that there was not any evidence of lack of state protection for him [44]; that the applicant had suffered any form of torture under section 37U of the Ordinance [45]; that he was only subjected to threats but he had made no complaint to police [57]; that there was no evidence to show that there was a well-founded fear of persecution [70] and finally that internal relocation was an option open to him if he were really in danger, which the Board did not accept [81].  The references are those in the Board’s Decision.

9.The applicant has not been able to say in what respect had the Board erred in its Decision.  His reason above does not assist his application. 

10.He is unable to show that he has any reasonable prospect of success in his intended appeal.

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

The applicant was unrepresented.