Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 2751/2018

[2021] HKCFI 2296

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2751 OF 2018

_____________

RE:

MD ZIBAN

Applicant

_____________

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 6 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 22 July 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 did not receive the Court’s decision within 14 days.

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, which I shall quote from the Court’s decision:

“21. The Board accepted that the Applicant had some historic involvements in BNP; was detained and mistreated by the police in around 1997; jailed for a period and his house was burnt down around that time; that he was deliberately hit by an AL member on a motorcycle following his release from jail; and that he was converted to Ahmadi faith.

22. However, the Board did not accept he faces any outstanding criminal charges relating to his past activities with BNP; that he was wanted by the authority; and that wanted posters of him were circulated or posted at the airport. It did not accept the Applicant’s claimed on-going support of BNP. The Board found he is no longer a bona fide supporter of BNP and given his lack of involvement in BNP for almost two decades, the Board does not accept he would be perceived by the current administration in Bangladesh or even by local AL supporters as a political opponent or targeted and harmed for that reason if he were to return to Bangladesh now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

23. The Board did not accept he has ever experienced any serious or significant problem either in Bangladesh or in Hong Kong for reason of his Ahmadi faith, whether from the Bangladeshi authorities, political opponents in AL, or Islamist opponents of Ahmadis. The Board does not accept that there is more than a remote prospect of the Applicant experiencing serious or significant harm if he returns to Bangladesh and to his Ahmadi community.

24. Consequently, the Board found there is no factual basis to support his claim for non-refoulement protection on any of the four applicable grounds.”

10.The applicant has not been able to put forth any valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision or the Court’s decision.

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.