Re Irfan Ahmed

HCAL 2318/2018

[2022] HKCFI 2333

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2318 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

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

Date of Decision: 11 August 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 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 Decision”), 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 24 May 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.

4.The applicant filed a summons on 18 July 2022 for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time. In his affirmation in support of his application, he asked for extension of time as he is a layman.

Discussion

5.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.

6.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].”

7.I shall therefore consider the merits of his case. The applicant claimed that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by the creditor because he was unable to repay the loan.

8.By way of the Director’s Decision, the Director refused the applicant’s claim for the reason that his claim was not substantiated. The applicant appealed to the Board.

9.The Board considered the evidence. It found that that applicant failed to establish that there were substantial grounds for believing that he would be subjected to the risks he claimed. The Board had set out its reasons in support of its findings, such as it found that Imtiaz’s threats of killing him were empty threats, pushing him to repay the loan only; that the evidence did not support his allegation that he left India out of fear of Imtiaz’s threats; that state protection was available to him and internal relocation was an option open to him too. See paragraphs 38-48 and 55-59. The references refer to the Board’s Decision.

10.In the applicant’s affirmation in support of his application for extension of time to appeal, he had not set out any reasons to show that he has any reasonable prospect of success in his intended appeal.

11.In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for the applicant to file his notice of appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

The applicant was unrepresented.