Re Doan Van Son

HCAL 2181/2018

[2022] HKCFI 3236

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2181 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

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 Decisions, 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”) affirmed the Director’s Decisions and dismissed his appeal.

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 14 September 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 against the Board’s Decision.

4.The applicant filed a summons dated 14 October 2022 for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time. In his affirmation in support of his application, he said that he has no means to have legal advice and he does not know the time limit for appeal. He considers that he has good ground, which is not necessary to disclose at this stage.

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. The deadline for appeal is on 28 September 2022 and the delay is 16 days. 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 his creditor Bui Van Huy.

9.By way of the Director’s Decisions, the Director refused the applicant’s claim for the reason that his claim was not substantiated. He appealed to the Board.

10.Having considered the applicant’s evidence, the Board found that, firstly, the applicant’s dispute was purely a private matter [44]. Secondly, after assessing the country of origin information, the Board considered that state protection was sufficient [45]-[52]. Thirdly, the applicant had never suffered any physical harms [61] and, finally, there was no evidence that the applicant was a target of the Vietnamese authorities [72]. For these reasons, the Board rejected the applicant’s claim and dismissed his appeal. The references refer to the Board’s Decision.

11.The applicant has failed to raise any valid reason to show that there is any realistic 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.