Re Sharda Ajay

HCAL 1882/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1913

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1882 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

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

Date of Decision: 20 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 15 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 dated 20 August 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 said that he did not receive the court’s letter within time to appeal.

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 Director took the view that there were no substantial grounds for believing that he would be harmed or killed upon his return to India [12]; that state protection was available to him [17] and internal relocation was an option open to him [23].  His claim under BOR 2 risk was not established.  References are those in the Director’s Decision.

9.The Board considered the applicant’s evidence and found that it did not accept that there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant faced a real risk of any of the proscribed forms of harm if he returned to India as a result of his claimed descent from Ravana, capitalist mindset, as a Hindu who ate beef or due to his lifestyle, thoughts or opinions.  See §§43-84 of the Board’s Decision.

10.The applicant has not been able to say in what respect had the Board erred in its Decision.

11.His reasons are only his opinions without any evidence in support of them.

12.He is unable to show that he has any realistic 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.