Re Djiu Sun FoRe Djiu Sun Fo

HCAL 1856/2018

[2021] HKCFI 2100

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1856 OF 2016

_____________

_____________

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

Date of Decision: 30 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, by his Decision, 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 18 June 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 16 July 2020 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision.  The file was misplaced and the application was therefore unable to be dealt with within the usual time.

5.In his affirmation in support of his application, he had said that he was not satisfied with the Court’s decision and he did not understand the legal system here until he had found someone who had given him assistance.

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 AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015, §27, the Court of Appeal held that for extension of time for making the application for leave to apply for judicial review, the Court has to consider (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted.

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.The Board considered the applicant’s evidence and rejected all his evidence in relation to the risks he claimed, including the fact that he had a business partnership with his friend; that his friend had drawn a loan from the loan-shark; that the loan-shark had demanded payment of the loan from him; that he came to Hong Kong in order to avoid the loan-shark and held that his stories were fabricated for his application for

10.The applicant 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.