Re: Santos Salvador Jr Liquigan Applicant

HCAL 1049/2019

[2023] HKCFI 84

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1049 OF 2019

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

The application

1.The applicant is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission and he lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). The Director rejected his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”). Having considered his evidence, the Board, by its Decisions (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decisions. The applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision on BOR 2 risk.

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 Second Decision.

3.By Order dated 23 June 2022 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that there was no realistic prospect of success in his intended application.

4.The applicant filed a summons on 6 December 2022 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision. In his affirmation in support of his application, he did not state the reason for his delay.

Discussion

5.Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reason, 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 his appeal is 7 July 2022. The applicant is late for about 5 months. I shall consider the merits of his 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 some unknown corrupt politicians because of his previous involvement with a party called Bayan Muna.

9.The Director refused his application because his claim was unsubstantiated. He appealed to the Board.

10.Having considered all the evidence, the Board rejected his claim. It further found that state protection was available to him and internal relocation was a viable option open to him.

11.The applicant has raised no valid reason to show that he has a realistic prospect of success in his intended appeal.

12.In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for his appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.

The applicant was unrepresented.