Re Mutale Martin, Alias Ogbonna Emmanuel Ikechukwu

HCAL 512/2021

[2021] HKCFI 2240

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
NO  512 OF 2021

_____________

_____________

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

Date of Decision:  12 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 26 May 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 17 June 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 had no means to employ a lawyer himself and was of the view that he had good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered at this stage.

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 had considered his appeal.  By the Board’s Decision, the Board rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision for the reasons that his evidence on the story of MASSOB association and his being gay was rejected [56-61]; that even assuming that his story was true, he was not entitled to non-refoulement under each of the statutory provisions [62-68] and internal relocation was an option open to him [72].  The references are those in the Board’s Decision.

10.The applicant’s reasons in support of this application do not assist him.  He has to state his grounds of appeal as the Court has to consider them at this stage.

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.