Re Brar Pritpal Singh

HCAL 1311/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1958

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1311 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 Decisions (“the Board’s Decisions”), 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 dated 6 July 2018 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decisions.

3.By Order dated 25 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 26 May 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; that the Court’s decision was unfair and he was unaware of the time limit for appeal.  According to the Court’s record, the Court’s decision was sent to the applicant at his last known address on 25 March 2021.  The letter has not been returned undelivered.

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 Decisions, the Board rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.  The Board had given the reasons below in its 1^st Decision.  The references in brackets are in the Board’s 1^st Decision:

(1)     The applicant’s evidence was unreliable and inconsistent with the country of origin information in relation to the election of the Village Head. [47-53]

(2)     The applicant failed to show that he had a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the enumerated grounds or that there was a real chance that the claimed fear of persecution would materialize. [56]

(3)     There was no reliable evidence to show that there had been acquiescence or failure of due diligence on the part of the police. [64]

(4)     On the reasons above, the Board rejected his claim on Persecution risk [56], BOR 2 risk [61] and Torture risk. [63]

9.The applicant has not been able to say in what respect had the Board erred in its decisions.  His reason for this application does not assist him.

10.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.