Re Rabang Keyver Veronia

HCAL 2999/2018

[2021] HKCFI 2208

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2999 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

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

Date of Decision: 11 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 22 May 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 15 June 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 did not receive the Court’s decision on time.  He also said that he did not understand the procedure.  He had to obtain his friend’s assistance as he has no means to engage a lawyer himself.  He now understands that he has good grounds, which do not have to be considered at this stage.  He considers that the Director and the Board had not made proper inquiry into his situation.  They may go to the Philippines to see the situation themselves.  His situation is dangerous in the Philippines.

Discussion

6.Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reasons, 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 came to a conclusion:

“53. There was no substantial ground in the claim for believing that the Appellant would be in danger of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment, if refouled. There was no real danger or risk that he would be killed. The Appellant did not have a genuine or substantial fear of ill-treatment in his country and he did not have any well-founded basis for any fear of persecution.”

10.The applicant’s grounds above do not assist him in his application.  He has not stated any valid grounds in support of his application for my consideration.  The Director and the adjudicator may rely upon the country of origin information (“COI”) for their determination of the case.  It is not necessary for them to go to the Philippines to see for themselves.  They had considered the COI before they made their decisions.

11.The applicant is unable to show that he has any reasonable prospect of success in his intended appeal.

12.In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for his appeal.  Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

The applicant was unrepresented.