Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 2636/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1874

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2636 OF 2018

_____________

RE:

ALI RAZA

Applicant

_____________

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers

Date of Decision:

2 August 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 22 November 2018 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.By Order dated 28 April 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 25 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. According to the court’s record, the Court’s decision was sent to the applicant at his last known address on 28 April 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 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)     There are numerous matters in his claim form and interview which lack sufficient detail and require explanation. [44]

(2)     There are material inconsistencies and omissions between the applicant’s claim form and his interview which require explanation. [45]

(3)     The applicant had refused to co-operate with the Board notwithstanding the Board had told him at the outset of the hearing that he had the obligation to provide the Board with credible evidence. His conduct undermines his credibility. [47]

(4)     For the reasons above, the Board attached no credence to any of the statements or claims that the applicant made to the Immigration Department and it concluded that he is not a witness of truth. [48]

(5)     The Board finds that he has not established any of the facts he has asserted. [49]

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