Re Jasmeet Singh
|
HCAL 2743/2018 [2021] HKCFI 2388 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2743 OF 2018 _____________
_____________ Before: Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers Date of Decision: 30 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 16 July 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 5 August 2021 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision. 5.In his summons, he said that he did not receive the Court’s order, so he did not appeal in time. 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:
9.By the Board’s Decision, the Board rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision for the reasons that the Board rejected his evidence and did not accept any of his claim and consider that they had been fabricated in their entirety [46]; that relocation was a reasonable option for the applicant [48]; that the Board was not satisfied that there was a real chance, a real risk or substantial or strong grounds for believing that he would be subjected to harm amounting to torture, CIDTP/torture, a risk to his life or persecution, from either Ranjit Singh or Dimple Chadha upon his return to India [49]. The references are those in the Board’s Decision. 10.The applicant has not raised any issue that the Board was in error in arriving at its Decision and is therefore 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
Rajwinder Singh and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Cucun Cunayah and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Re Siti Choiriyah and Another
Re Harni Sumiyati
Re Nur Azizah
Re Mondal Sumitra Rani
Re Pervin Jahanara
Re Chauhan Manish
Re Wiji Lestariasih
Re Nur Afnika
Re Eka Mugiasih
Re Shamim
Re Shahid Muhammad
Re Akther Samima
Re Siti Aisyah Tosir
Re Pham Thi Dinh
Re Mahmoon Asjad
Re Raksaboondasri Charoenporn
Re Pham Thi Thuy
Re Islam Sheikh Nazrul
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 2743/2018