Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 844/2019

[2023] HKCFI 1869

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 844 OF 2019

_____________

BETWEEN

	Major Singh	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:

1 August 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 Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

2.This Court, by Form CALL-1 dated 23 May 2023 (“the Court’s decision”) refused his application.

3.The applicant filed a summons and an affirmation on 19 June 2023, applying for extension of time for filing the notice of appeal.

4.In his affirmation, he said that he did not receive the Court’s decision. According to the record, the Court’ decision was sent to the applicant’s last known address on 23 May 2023 without return 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.

7.The deadline for his appeal is 7 June 2023. The applicant is late for 12 days. I shall consider the merits of his case.

8.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].”

9.The applicant’s claim is that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by Joginder Singh (“Joginder”) and Mohinder Singh due to land and political disputes.

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

11.The Board found that his evidence was not credible. The Board further found that state protection is available to him and internal relocation is a viable option for him. It therefore dismissed his appeal.

12.The applicant is unable to raise any valid reason to challenge the Board’s Decision.

13.In the circumstances, I find that the applicant has not been able to show that there is any 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.