Re Mirza Muhammad Ramzan Baig

HCAL 2867/2018

[2022] HKCFI 461

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2867 OF 2018

_____________________

_____________________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.The applicant is from Pakistan. He lodged a non-refoulement claim on 13/8/2008. The basis of his claim was that he had a land dispute with “T & S”. He would be harmed or killed if refouled.

2.His claim was eventually assessed under the USM. The Director dismissed his claim on 9/10/2014 on the ground that the land dispute was a private matter which did not involve persecution. There was no injury which amounted to a minimum level of severity.

3.He appealed to the TCAB on 20/10/2014. During the oral hearing, he informed the adjudicator that he would like to withdraw his appeal. The TCAB dismissed his appeal on 20/4/2015 accordingly.

4.He sought leave for judicial review of the decisions of the TCAB and the Director on 2/9/2015. This court refused leave on 18/4/2016. (HCAL 180/2015). For reasons unknown, he had not left Hong Kong.

5.On 10/9/2018, the applicant sought to re-open his claim with the Director. It was treated as a subsequent claim. On the request of the Director for further information[1], he filed 3 documents on 9/10/2018.

6.The Director found that the First Information Report dated 8/3/2006 was part of the basis of the previous claim. The First Information Report dated 28/8/2018 was about the shooting incident of his father which occurred on 26/8/2015. “T & S” allegedly shot his father because they knew the applicant had returned to Pakistan. The report was made on 21/2/2013 which pre-dated the incident on 26/8/2015. It was not credible. Besides, the applicant had not left Hong Kong since 2006. The Director refused the subsequent claim as there was no significant change of circumstances. There was no realistic prospect of success. The Director rejected the subsequent claim on 3/12/2018. 

7.On 13/12/2018, the applicant applied for leave for judicial review of the decision of the Director.

8.The Director was justified to reject his subsequent claim as there was no substantial change of circumstances. I agree with the findings of the Director that it was justified to reject the additional documents. There was no error of law or procedure. The decision of the Director was reasonable. Leave was refused on 28/10/2021.

9.The applicant filed a summons on 16/12/2021 for extension of time to appeal against the decision of this court.  He was out of time for 5 weeks. In his affirmation, he asserted that he missed the deadline as he had no money to pay for the court fees.

10.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.[2]

11.The delay was substantial. Insufficient fund alone is not a valid reason for extension of time. The merit of the intended judicial review is also an important factor. As set out in paragraphs 6—8 above, there is no merit in the intended judicial review.  Having considered all factors, I refuse extension of time for appeal.

The applicant was unrepresented.