Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1998/2018

[2022] HKCFI 135

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1998 OF 2018

_____________

RE:

BHAGAT VISHAL

Applicant

_____________

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers

Date of Decision:

11 January 2022

_____________

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 Form CALL-1 dated 3 December 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.

4.The applicant filed a summons on 20 December 2021 for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time.

5.In his affirmation in support of his application, he said:

“… I do not have any financial resource and I could not aware of my time limit.”

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. The delay of 3 days is not significant and serious. Nevertheless, I shall consider the merits of the case.

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.The applicant claimed that if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his parental uncle, Meela Singh (“MS”), MS’s family members and relatives over a land dispute.

10.The Director found that the level of risk of him being harmed or killed by MS and his family upon refoulement was assessed to be low [11]-[15]; that state protection was available to him [16]-[20] and that internal relocation was an option open to him [21]. See the Director’s Decision.

11.By the Board’s Decision, the Board affirmed the Director’s Decision and dismissed his appeal. The Board evaluated the applicant’s evidence against his oral testimony, and found that there were material facts and information provided by the applicant to be implausible and unreliable.

12.The applicant is unable 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.

13.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.