Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 693/2019

[2023] HKCFI 874

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 693 OF 2019

_____________

BETWEEN

	Ahmed Imtiaz	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

_____________

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers

Date of Decision:

13 April 2023

_____________

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

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 31 January 2023 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that there was no reasonable prospect of success in his proposed judicial review.

4.The applicant filed a summons on 8 March 2023 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision. In his affirmation in support of his application, he said that he does not agree with the High Court Decision; that he had his lawyer to apply for him as he was in CIC; that his lawyer did not ask for an oral hearing, and that the Court could not send the Court’s decision to his current address as his lawyer did not update the Court of his address.

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 15 February 2023. The applicant is late for about 3 weeks. 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’s claim is that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by (i) Tanoli Sajjad, the leader of the Muslim Student Federation of the Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid-e-Azam (“MSF-Q”) and (ii) his creditors, Waqar Ali Shah and Hassan.

9.The Director of Immigration refused his application for the reason that his claim was not substantiated. He appealed to the Board.

10.Having considered the evidence, the Board concluded that the applicant’s claim lacked credibility and that state protection would be available to him even if his allegations were true. It therefore dismissed his appeal.

11.The applicant has not been able to raise any valid ground to challenge the Board’s Second Decision. There is not any 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.