Re Sevillano Joebert Colado

HCAL 928/2019

[2022] HKCFI 2735

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 928 OF 2019

_____________

_____________

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

Date of Decision:  20 September 2022

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

The application

1.The applicant is an illegal immigrant for staying in Hong Kong without permission 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 30 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 9 August 2022 for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time. In his affirmation in support of his application, he said he did not receive the Court’s decision. According to the record, the Court’s decision was sent to the applicant on 30 May 2022 at his last known address.

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.The Court shall consider the factors as set out in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam [2016] 2 HKC 393 at para. 27(3) in considering if extension of time should be extended: (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 first consider the merits of the case.

7.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].”

8.The applicant claimed that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his creditor, Jerry because he was unable to repay the loan from Jerry.

9.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.

10.Before the Board, the applicant had also added a new claim that he would be harmed or killed by his wife’s ex-husband, H, who was released from prison. The Board found that Jerry had not inflicted any harm which amounted to sufficient level of severity and had not harmed any of the applicant’s family despite they still resided in the home village. It also found that H had no intention to harm or kill the applicant and his wife. As a result, the Board found that the applicant had failed to establish the risk of harm from either Jerry or H. Further, state protection and internal relocation were both viable options for the applicant [30]. The reference refers to the Board’s Decision.

11.It is clear that the Board dismissed his appeal with the reasons above. In the applicant’s affirmation in support of his application for extension of time to appeal, he had not set out any reason to show that he has any reasonable prospect of success in his intended appeal.

12.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.