Re Mohammad Hasim
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 1468/2018 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 11 January 2022.
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 1 case · Cites 5 cases
|
HCAL 1468/2018 [2022] HKCFI 136 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1468 OF 2018 _____________
_____________
_____________ 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.He was repatriated back to India. He entered Hong Kong illegally again and surrendered to the Immigration Department. He applied for subsequent claim, which was rejected by the Director. 3.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 Director’s Decision. 4.By Form CALL-1 dated 24 November 2021 (the “Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that there is no realistic prospect of success in his intended judicial review of the Director’s Decision rejecting his subsequent claim. 5.The applicant filed a summons on 13 December 2021 for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time. 6.In his affirmation in support of his application, he said:
Discussion 7.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. 8.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. The delay of 5 days is not significant and serious. Nevertheless, I shall consider the merits of the case. 9.In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, the Court of Appeal held:
10.The applicant claimed that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his creditors if he returned to India because he was unable to repay his debt. 11.The Director found that the level of risk of him being harmed or killed by his creditors was low; that the state was no involved and state protection would be available to him; and that internal relocation was an option open to him. 12.He appealed to the Board, but he refused to answer any questions put to him. The Board had doubts on the credibility of his evidence. It dismissed his appeal on all risks of his claim. 13.In his subsequent claim, the Director found that he relied upon the same facts for his previous claim and rejected his subsequent claim. 14.The applicant has not been able to set out any valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision. Nor can he point out any error on the part of this Court in the assessment of his application. 15.There is no realistic prospect of success in his intended appeal. I therefore refuse to extend time for him to appeal and dismiss his application.
The applicant was unrepresented |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 1468/2018