Re Ali Mohsin

HCAL 1658/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1873

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1658 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

_____________

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 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 Decision.

3.By Order dated 15 January 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 19 June 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.

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 recorded in its Decision that the applicant elected not to give evidence at the hearing.  In the circumstances, the Board only assessed his evidence by comparing his evidence in the Non-Refoulement Claim Form and the Interview Report signed by him on 25 August 2009.  Having considered the evidence, the Board came to the conclusions:

“38. As shown above the information given by the Appellant is conflicting and inherently incredible. I cannot base on such unreliable information to reach a conclusion in his favour. I therefore dismiss his appeal.

…

45. Since the beating up of Ali Razzaq in 2010, the Appellant has no longer become the target of the victims’ relatives for their revenge. Hence, his feared ill-treatment is unlikely to materialize, if he returns to Pakistan.

…

47. The above COI [Country of Origin Information] shows that state protection is available to him, upon his return to Pakistan. This would obviate or lower the risk of harm from the victims’ relatives.

48. In Pakistan, internal relocation alternatives are available, and this would further lower or obviate the risk of harm from the victims’ relatives.

…

50. He is 35 years old.  It would not be unduly harsh for him to relocate to a place other than his home village in order to avoid the perceived risk from the victims’ relatives and to make a living there.”

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 chance 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.