Re Jallow Momodou Y
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 2946/2018 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 9 August 2021.
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.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 5 cases
|
HCAL 2946/2018 [2021] HKCFI 2121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2946 OF 2018 _____________
_____________ Before: Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers Date of Decision: 9 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, 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 7 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 11 March 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 said that he lacked knowledge and had insufficient resources. 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:
9.The Board considered the applicant’s evidence and it concluded the facts below; the references are those in the Board’s Decision.
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. |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 2946/2018