Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 1147/2019

[2024] HKCFI 501

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1147 OF 2019

_____________

BETWEEN

	Temporal Mark Ryan Reyes	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 March 2024

_____________

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 November 2023 (“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.By summons filed on 30 November 2023, the applicant applied for appeal the Court’s decision out of time.

5.In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant said,

“… I did not get the court judgment.”

6.According to the record, the Court’s decision was by post sent to his last known address on 14 November 2023 without being returned.

Discussion

7.Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reason, I decide to determine this application on paper without an oral hearing.

8.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.

9.The deadline for his appeal is 29 November 2023. The applicant is late for 1 day only. Nevertheless, I shall consider the merits of his case.

10.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].”

11.The applicant’s claim was based upon his allegation that if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his creditor Renato.

12.The Director rejected his claim for not being substantiated. He appealed to the Board.

13.Having considered the evidence, the Board, for the reasons given, found that the applicant failed to establish that he will be subjected to any risk of harm by his enemies as he alleged. The Board further found that state protection will be available to him and internal relocation is a viable option for him.

14.The applicant has not raised any valid reason to challenge the Board’s Decision. He therefore fails to show that there is a reasonable prospect of success in his intended appeal.

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