Re Gurpinder Singh

HCAL 3016/2018

[2022] HKCFI 214

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 3016 OF 2018

_____________________

_____________________

Before:  Deputy High Court Judge P. Li in Chambers

Date of Decision:  25 January 2022

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

1.The applicant is from India. He sneaked into Hong Kong on 26/10/2015 from Shenzhen. He was arrested on the same day. He filed the present non-refoulement claim on 28/10/2015.

2.He would be in danger if returned to India as he confronted JS during the village head election in 2010. He was affiliated to Akali Dal party while JS associated with the Congress Party. He was assaulted by JS and his men in 2012 and 2014.

3.During the village head election around April 2015, his cousin was shot dead. JS threatened to kill him also. His mother eventually withdrew from the election. He was refused entry to Hong Kong on 6/8/2015. He returned to Gurgaon city, India. He stayed there safely for about 3 months. He left India again for Guangdong by air on 24/10/2015. He took a bus to Shenzhen and sneaked into Hong Kong on 26/10/2015.

4.His non-refoulement claim was rejected on 25/4/2018 by the Director. The appeal was dismissed by the TCAB on 24/12/2018.

5.The adjudicator found that the applicant was not credible. His evidence was vague and fanciful. It lacked details. During the 2015 election, JS focused on harassing the applicant instead of his mother who was a candidate of the election. It was even more unconvincing as the applicant had no involvement with the “AK” party then. He was safe in Delhi. JS could not locate him. It was unreasonable that the applicant had not reported the murder of his cousin to the police. His parents continued to live in the village. They were not attacked.

6.On 31/12/2018, the applicant filed the leave application for judicial review of the TCAB decision.

7.This court agreed with the findings of the adjudicator. The applicant was not credible. His evidence was without details. There was no error of law or procedure. The TCAB decision was reasonable. Leave was refused on 26/8/2021.

8.The applicant filed a summons on 17/9/2021 for extension of time to appeal against the decision of this court. He was out of time by one week. In his affirmation, the applicant asserted that he had to raise money to pay for the appeal.

9.In considering whether to extend time for appeal, this court will take into account: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the merits of the intended judicial review; (4) prejudice to the respondent.[1]

10.The delay was short. There was no explanation of his effort to meet the deadline. Besides, I have also considered the prospect of the intended judicial review which was important at this stage.

11.As set out in paragraph 5 above, the adjudicator found that the applicant was not credible. His evidence was vague and fanciful. I agree with the decision of the TCAB. In my judgment, there is no merit in the intended judicial review.

12.Having considered all relevant factors, I refuse the application for extension of time to appeal.

The applicant was unrepresented.