Re Iqbal Akhtar

HCAL 1385/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1935

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1385 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

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

Date of Decision: 26 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 13 July 2018 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.By Order dated 31 March 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 2 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 did not receive the Court’s decision and it was not safe back home and there was no government police protection for him.

6.The Court’s decision was sent to the applicant on 31 March 2021 without return from the Post Office.

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.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].”

9.By the Board’s Decision, the Board rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.  The Board had given the reasons below in its Decision.  The references in brackets are in the Board’s Decision:

(1) The Board attached no credence at all to the applicant’s claims to have had problems with the Taliban in the way he described. [15]

(2) His evidence was vague and unsubstantiated and was inconsistent with the background knowledge about the Taliban as shown in the country of origin information. [15-27]

(3) Internal relocation was an option open to him. [32]

(4) For the reason that his factual evidence was not accepted, the Board rejected the applicant’s claim on Persecution risk [34], BOR 2 and BOR 3 risks [43] and Torture risk [47].

10.The applicant has not been able to say in what respect had the Board erred in its decision.  His reasons for this application do not assist him.

11.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.