Re Gursab Singh

HCAL 2842/2018

[2022] HKCFI 1620

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2842 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers

Date of Decision: 17 June 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 Decisions, rejected his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”). Having considered his evidence, the Board, by its Decisions (the “Board’s Decisions”), rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decisions.

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 Decisions.

3.By Form CALL-1 dated 8 March 2022 (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. The deadline for him to file his notice of appeal is 23 March 2022 (within 14 days after such order) . Since the Court Registry was closed between 7 March to 11 April 2022, such period should not count. The deadline becomes 26 April 2022 (14 days from 12 April 2022).

4.The applicant filed a summons on 12 May 2022 for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time.

5.In his affirmation in support of his application, he said he had no means to instruct a lawyer and asked for extension of time for appeal.

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. 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 maternal uncles because of a land dispute.

10.The Director refused his claim because the Director, in his Decision dated 16 January 2015 (“the Director’s First Decision”) concluded that the level of risk of harm from the applicant’s maternal uncles upon the applicant’s refoulement was assessed to be low because (i) the low intensity and frequency of past ill-treatment from the maternal uncles was indicative of a small future risk of harm upon his return [15]; (ii) state protection would be available to him [16], and (iii) that internal relocation was an option open to him [17]-[22]. In the Notice of Further Decision dated 8 February 2017, the Director also rejected the applicant’s claim on BOR2 risk (“the Director’s Second Decision”) for the reason that there was no evidence to show that his right to life under BOR 2 would be violated upon his return. The references refer to the Director’s Decisions. He appealed to the Board.

11.Having considered the applicant’s evidence, the Board, for the reasons set out in the Board’s Decisions, agreed with the findings of the Director and it affirmed the Director’s Decisions.

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 the 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.

The applicant was unrepresented.