Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 977/2019

[2024] HKCFI 611

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 977 OF 2019

_____________

BETWEEN

	Mijares Jero Oliveros	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:

5 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 24 August 2023 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that there is no realistic prospect of success in his intended application. The deadline for appeal is on 1 September 2023.

4.By summons filed on 28 December 2023, the applicant applied for appeal the Court’s decision out of time. He is therefore about 3 months and 3 weeks out of time.

5.The applicant said he did not get the High Court Decision. According to the record, the Court’s decision was sent to his last known address on 24 August 2023 without being returned from the Post Office.

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 on paper 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.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 said that if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by the family of his ex-girlfriend.

10.The Director rejected his claim because it was not substantiated. He appealed to the Board.

11.Having considered the evidence, the Board found that there was no evidence to establish that the applicant will be subjected to any real risk of harm if he returns to his country.

12.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.

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