Re Hussain Shabbir
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 2635/2018 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 9 November 2021.
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.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 5 cases
|
HCAL 2635/2018 [2021] HKCFI 3179 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2635 OF 2018 _____________
_____________ Before: Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers Date of Decision: 9 November 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 28 April 2021 (the “Court’s decision”), the Court refused to grant him leave to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision and dismissed his application for the reason that there was no realistic prospect of success in his intended application. 4.The applicant filed a summons on 15 October 2021 for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time. 5.In his affirmation in support of his application, he said that he did not get the judgment. According to the Court’s record, Form CALL-1 was sent to him by letter dated 28 April 2021 at his last known address. 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 as set out below.
10.His ground for this application is not valid and his intended appeal has no merit. 11.The Court does not find any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board’s Decision. The findings of the Board are not in any respect open to challenge as Wednesbury unreasonable or irrational. 12.The applicant has not raised any valid ground to say either that the Board was in error or that the Court was in error. There is no realistic prospect of success in his intended appeal against the Court’s decision. 13.In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for his appeal against the Court’s decision. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.
The applicant appeared in person. |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 2635/2018