Re Ravinder Singh

HCAL 748/2019

[2022] HKCFI 1712

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 748 OF 2019

_____________

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

The application

1.The applicant is an illegal immigrant by overstaying 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 Decisions”), 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 31 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 15 April 2022 (within 14 days after such order).

4.The applicant filed a summons on 23 May 2022 for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time.

5.In his affirmation in support of his application, he said he did not receive the Court’s decision. According to the court’s record, the Court’s decision was sent to the applicant’s last known address on 31 March 2022 by ordinary post. He is deemed to receive the same on the next following day, not being a specified day such as Saturday or a general holiday.[1] He is therefore deemed to have received the Court’s decision on 1 April 2022.

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 Jail Singh (“JS”) due to a land dispute.

10.The Director found that the level of risk of him being harmed or killed upon refoulement was assessed to be low because (i) the low intensity of past ill-treatments indicated an unlikelihood of future risk of harm [14]-[19]; (ii) state protection was available to him [20]-[27]; and (iii) internal relocation was an option open to him [28]-[33]. The references refer to the Director’s Decision. He appealed to the Board.

11.The Board rejected his factual evidence and dismissed his appeal. The Board observed that the applicant was unable to recall crucial aspects of his claims, which was a strong indication that his claim was fabricated [31]. It also noted that the applicant refused to continue answering the questions after he failed to clarify certain basic questions of his claim [32]. Thus, the Board was not satisfied that the applicant established any claimed fear upon refoulement [33]. For these reasons, the Board rejected the applicant’s claim and dismissed his appeal. The references refer to the Board’s Decision.

12.The applicant is unable to raise 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.