Re Kharoud Randhir Singh

HCAL 2745/2018

[2021] HKCFI 2505

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO  2745 OF 2018

____________________

____________________

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

Date of Decision:  3 September 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 9 July 2021 (the “Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that there was no realistic prospect of success in his intended application.

4.The applicant filed a summons dated 29 July 2021 for “judicial review out of time”.

5.In his affirmation in support of his application, he said that he did not receive the court’s letter in time.  Therefore, he asked for extension of time for his appeal.

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.By the Board’s Decision, the Board rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision for the reasons that the applicant was found to be not a truthful witness and he had not told the truth, as a result of which, the Board rejected his alleged facts that his uncle or his three sons had threatened, attacked or injured him [94] and that he would not have any risk if he returned to India [96-98].  This conclusion was reached after extensive cross-examination of the applicant’s evidence at the hearing.  [28-94] The references are those of the Board’s Decision.

10.The Court, having examined the Board’s decision, agreed that the Board’s Decision was without fault.

11.The applicant has not raised any valid ground to say that the Board was in error in arriving at its Decision or the Court was in error.  He is therefore 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.