Re Pham Van Khoa

HCAL 244/2021

[2021] HKCFI 1996

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 244 OF 2021

_____________

_____________

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

Date of Decision: 21 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 12 May 2021 (“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 11 June 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 received 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.By the Board’s Decision, the Board rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision for the reasons that if he returned to Vietnam, police protection would be available to him [66]; that internal relocation was an option open to him [71] and that there was no reasonable ground to believe that the risk to life he would face in Vietnam was genuine and substantial and that there was no well-found fear of persecution risk.

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

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.