Re Sajid Mohammad

HCAL 3019/2018

[2022] HKCFI 388

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 3019 OF 2018

_____________________

_____________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

1.The applicant is from India. He came to Hong Kong on 4/6/2014 and was allowed to stay for a week. He overstayed until arrested by the police on 30/7/2014. He lodged the non-refoulement claim in this case on 2/8/2014.

2.In mid-2012, he had a love affair with a Hindu girl. Her brother warned him to stop the relationship. He pretended to agree. Later, he was assaulted by her brother and a gang. He was injured and hospitalized. He was threatened to stop meeting the girl and leave Kolkata, or else, they would kill him. He fled to New Delhi. He finally decided to leave India after he discovered that her brother was a significant member of the All India Trinamool Congress.

3.The Director rejected her non-refoulement claim on 4/8/2016 and 5/6/2017. His appeal to the TCAB was dismissed on 31/7/2017.

4.The adjudicator pointed out that the applicant was not credible. There was no risk of harm. He told the adjudicator a different story. His initial story was untrue. He borrowed a loan to come to Hong Kong in 2014. At the airport, he handed his passport to the Immigration Officer. He took the chance to run away from the airport. He went to a police station and was detained for 25 days. He was finally given immigration paper and released. He was vague about the terms of the loan. The adjudicator opined that his subsequent story was a fabrication.

5.On 31/12/2018, the applicant filed the leave application. He was 14 months out of time.

6.This court pointed out that there was no explanation for the delay. This court agreed with the findings of the adjudicator that his subsequent basis of claim was a fabrication. There was no error of law or procedure. The decision of the TCAB was reasonable. There was no good reason to extend time for the leave application. Leave was refused on 28/9/2021.

7.The applicant filed a summons on 19/10/2021 for extension of time to appeal against the decision of this court. He was out of time for 1 week.

8.In his affirmation for extension of time, the applicant indicated that he did not have money to pay for the appeal. He did not want to return to India as his life was in danger.

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 is about a week. He had to pay the filing fee even if extension of time is granted. His financial problem is not a convincing explanation for the delay.

11.As set out above, I agree with the decision of the TCAB. In my judgment, there is no merit in the intended judicial review. Having considered all factors, I refuse the application for extension of time to appeal.

The applicant was unrepresented.