Re Ceesay Ebrima

HCAL 2667/2018

[2021] HKCFI 2811

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2667 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

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

Date of Decision: 27 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 25 August 2021 for judicial review out of time.

5.In his affirmation in support of his application, he said that he considered that the Court’s decision was unfair without an opportunity for him to clarify his case and situation. He is not legally represented. He is not aware of the time limit for his appeal. He did not receive the Court’s decision.

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 there was no evidential basis for him to assert that he was not safe in Gambia and that his claim in this regard was founded on hearsay. Additionally, at the hearing, he conceded that he could live without fear in other areas of the country away from his home region. [117] There was no state involvement in the applicant’s case. [140 & 141] State protection would be available to him. [165] Internal relocation would also be available to him. [200 -201]

10.The Court, having examined the Board’s decision, considered that he had advanced no valid grounds for his application and concluded that he had no realistic prospect of success in the proposed judicial review.

11.The applicant has not raised any valid ground to say either that the Board was in error or that the Court was in error. He is therefore unable to show that he has any realistic 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.