Amrit Bahadur Magar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 1070/2019

[2023] HKCFI 852

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1070 OF 2019

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

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 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 Order dated 14 December 2022 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that there is no reasonable prospect of success in his proposed judicial review.

4.The applicant filed a summons on 1 March 2023 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision. In his affirmation in support of his application, he said he considers that the Court’s decision is unfair and unreasonable. He was only aware of the Court’s decision when he reported to Castle Bay Immigration Centre. According to the record, the Court’s decision was sent to the applicant’s last known address on 14 December 2022 without return post from the Post Office.

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 30 December 2022. The applicant is late for about 2 months. I shall, nevertheless, 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 the Maoists or Badal’s family as he revealed information on Maoists’ activities to the army, which led to the deaths of seven Maoists, including Badal.

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 accepted the applicant’s evidence. However, the Board, after considering the country of origin information, also found that state protection and internal relocation would be available to the applicant. In these premises, the Board rejected the applicant’s claim on BOR 3 risk. For the same reasons, the Board also rejected the applicant’s claim on BOR 2 risk and Persecution risk.

11.The applicant has given no valid reason in support of his application and 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.

The applicant was unrepresented.