Ehsan Ahmed v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

HCAL 32/2019

[2023] HKCFI 1024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 32 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 Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), 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 Decision.

3.By Order dated 21 February 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 4 April 2023 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision. In his affirmation in support of his application, he said he does not agree with the Court’s decision, and he did not receive the Court’s decision.

5.According to the record, the Court’s decision was sent to the applicant’s last known address on 21 February 2023. It was returned to the court. The court staff had enquired with the Immigration Department for his updated address. The Immigration Department replied with the same address. This shows that the previous Court’s decision was not accepted by the applicant. In the circumstances, the application is deemed to have received the Court’s decision. He has given no reason for his delay.

Discussion

6.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.

7.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.

8.The deadline for his appeal is 8 March 2023. The applicant is late for about one month. I shall consider the merits of his case.

9.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].”

10.The applicant’s claim is that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his cousins, Riaz and Ilyas, for a land dispute.

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

12.Having considered the applicant’s evidence, the Board found that the applicant’s evidence was not credible and dismissed his appeal.

13.The applicant has not been able to raise any valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decisions. There is no realistic prospect of success in his intended appeal.

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

The applicant was unrepresented.