Re Sarbjeet Singh

HCAL 596/2019

[2021] HKCFI 2691

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 596 OF 2019

_____________________

_____________________

Before:  Deputy High Court Judge P. LI in Chambers

Date of Decision:  15 September 2021

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

1.The applicant is from India. He came to Hong Kong on 9/2/2013. He was permitted to stay as a visitor for 14 days. He overstayed until he was arrested on 23/12/2017. He filed the non-refoulement claim in this case on 3/10/2018. His claim was rejected by the Director on 21/12/2018. His appeal was dismissed by the TCAB on 22/2/2019.

2.The applicant’s father was a member of the AAP [1]. In March 2013, his father was one of the candidate in the election for council head.  The other candidate (“S”) was from the SAD [2]. The 3^rd candidate (“B”) was from INC [3] .  “S” and “B” demanded his father to withdraw.  His father refused.  In around August 2012, a group of men including “S” and “B” approach him at his father’s farmland.  They shot dead his uncle and injured his thigh.  He fought back and injured “S”.  Two days later, some men came to his home threatening that “S” would take revenge.  He was in fear and hid at his friend’s place in Ludhiana for 5½ months.  He finally left India for Hong Kong on 8/2/2013.

3.The adjudicator found that the applicant’s evidence was vague and sketchy. His injuries did not amount to a minimum level of severity.  “S” and “B” would not be interested in him after more than 6 years.  He delayed for nearly 5 years before filing the claim.  In the interim, he used another’s identity card and worked illegally.  This reflected badly on his real intention to seek protection.  The adjudicator rejected the appeal on 22/2/2019.

4.The applicant filed the leave application on 1/3/2019.  In his affirmation, he did not raise any specific grounds of review.  He stressed that his life was in danger.

5.Deputy Judge C.P. Pang pointed out that the adjudicator did not accept his evidence as it lacked details and woefully vague.  Most evidence was bare assertions.  There was a delay of nearly 5 years before filing a claim.  There was reasonable State protection and reasonable relocation options.  The Judge found no error of law and procedure.  The decision of the TCAB was reasonable.  The Judge refused leave on 9/3/2021. [4]

6.The applicant filed a summons on 20/5/2021 for extension of time to appeal. In his summons and affirmation, he stated that there was a good ground of appeal which had not been dealt with.  He did not specify further.  He was about 8 weeks out of time.

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.[5]

8.I notice that the applicant had supplied another address in the summons dated 20/5/2021.  He had not updated this address with the court.  The decision of Deputy Judge Pang was sent to his previous address.  It was the last known address at that time.  There was no return of mail.  In my view, the applicant must bear the consequence of any problem in the mail.

9.The delay was substantial.  I doubt his reason for the delay.  However, the important issue is the merits of the intended judicial review [6].

10.I agree with the findings of the adjudicator.  The applicant was not truthful.  The adjudicator was right to reject his evidence.  I also agree with the decision of Deputy Judge Pang.  The intended judicial review was of no merit.

11.I refuse the application for extension of time to appeal.

The applicant was unrepresented.