Re Zareed Jamshaid

HCAL 2917/2018

[2021] HKCFI 2250

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2917 OF 2018

___________________

___________________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge P. LI in Chambers

Date of Decision: 11 August 2021

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.The applicant is from Pakistan. He sneaked into Hong Kong by boat on 15/12/2015 from Shenzhen. He surrendered to the Immigration Department on 23/12/2015. He filed the non-refoulement claim in this case on 10/3/2017.

2.The Director rejected his claim on 30/4/2018.  The TCAB refused his appeal on 7/12/2018.

3.On 19/12/2018, the applicant applied for leave for judicial review of the decisions of the TCAB and the Director.  He maintained that he would be killed by his enemy— “Murad”.

4.This court accepted the findings of the TCAB.  There was no robbery alleged by the applicant.  His injury was not sustained during the robbery.  There was no real risk of harm.  This court concluded that there was no error of law or procedures.  The decision of the TCAB was not irrational.  Leave for judicial review was refused on 10/11/2020. [1]

5.The applicant filed a summons on 22/2/2021 for extension of time to appeal against the decision of this court.  He was nearly 3 months out of time for appeal.

6.In his affirmation in support of the application for extension of time, the applicant just indicated that he disagreed with the decision of this court. He did not explain the delay.

7.In considering whether to extend time for appeal against the refusal of leave to apply for judicial review, this court will take into account: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted.[2]

8.The applicant is out of time for nearly 3 months.  It is a substantial delay.  He had not explained.  

9.The basis of the claim was as follows.  The applicant supported “PTI”[3]. He alleged that there was a robbery at his office on 4/4/2015.  He managed to arrest one of the robbers who was the uncle of “Murad”.  He sustained a fracture of his leg during the struggle.  Since then “Murad” threatened to kill him in revenge.  He believed “Murad” and his uncle were associated with PML[4]. The police refused to investigate as they sided with PML.  The uncle of “Murad” was not charged.  He had to leave Pakistan in November 2015 for his safety.

10.The adjudicator rejected the evidence of the applicant after a hearing held on 23/11/2018.  The adjudicator pointed out the following significant points:

a.  According to the medical report submitted by the applicant, he only twisted his left knee in a traffic accident.  He did not fracture his leg.  He was admitted to the hospital on 26/5/2015 and discharged on 14/7/2015.  This did not tally with the time of the alleged robbery which was on 4/4/2015.

b.  The applicant mentioned that “Murad” was his colleague.  That he rammed into the robber’s motorcycle in his oral evidence before the TCAB.  These facts were inconsistent with the content of the NCF.

c.  There was no more threat from “Murad” after he was discharged from the hospital.  There was no attempt to attack him.

d.  The PTI was elected the ruling party in 2018.  However, the applicant insisted that the police would not change their practice.

e.  The adjudicator did not accept that “Murad” could locate him through the NADRA.[5]  Instead, there were reasonable relocation options.

11.The adjudicator held that the applicant was not credible.  The adjudicator rejected the factual basis of his claim.  There was no real risk of harm if he returned to Pakistan.

12.I agree with the conclusion of the TCAB.  I am of the view that there was no merit in the intended judicial review.  The delay in processing the appeal was significant.  There was no explanation whatsoever.  In the circumstances, I refuse his application for extension of time to appeal.

The applicant was unrepresented.