Re Doan Van Khoi

HCAL 1101/2019

[2022] HKCFI 2783

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO OF 1101/2019

_____________

_____________

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

Date of Decision: 23 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 27 June 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 12 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 understand English or Chinese and he did not know how to appeal. He had to get someone who understands English and Chinese to assist him.

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. Nevertheless, I shall 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 the police of the Vietnam Government because he had, as a journalistm, written articles in the press commenting the Vietnam Government.

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.Having considered the evidence, the Board found that the applicant’s evidence was not reliable because it found that in the applicant’s first statement, he claimed that his basis for protection is because of his inability of repaying his debt. The applicant was unable to supply any information in relation to the press he had worked or the articles he alledgedly had written in the press. He is ignorant of the structure of a press and there is no evidence to show that he had work in a press. He was unable to produce any medical reports for his alleged injuries.

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.