Re Khalil Sikander

Read the full judgment text of HCAL 776/2020 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 25 November 2022.

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

Cited by 2 cases

Case No.HCAL 776/2020[2022] HKCFI 3290
Court
High Court CFI
Date25 Nov 2022
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCAL 776/2020

[2022] HKCFI 3290

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 776 OF 2020

_____________

RE: KHALIL SIKANDER Applicant

_____________

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

Date of Decision: 25 November 2022

_____________

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 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”) affirmed the Director’s Decision 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 23 November 2021 (the “Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that he applied to withdraw his application because he had married and he would apply for dependant visa.

4.The applicant filed a summons dated 14 October 2022 for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time. He has filed no affirmation in support of his application. There is no reason to explain his delay.

5.There is nothing for the applicant to appeal against.

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

  (K. W. Lung)
  Deputy High Court Judge

The applicant was unrepresented.

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 776/2020