RE MAHMOOD TARIQ

HCAL 2051/2018

[2022] HKCFI 462

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2051 OF 2018

_____________________

_____________________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.  The applicant is from Pakistan. He sneaked into Hong Kong on 18/11/2013 from China. He was arrested by the police on the same day. He lodged the non-refoulement claim in this case on 20/11/2013.

2.  The applicant inherited a piece of land from his late father. He lost the authorization letter. The title of the land was shared with 3 uncles. Around 2011, his uncle claimed ownership of the land and filed a claim in court. His family also filed a counterclaim. It transpired that his uncle had already sold the land to others. In mid-2011, he was assaulted by his uncle and the associates. They told him to leave the land and threatened to kill him. He was in fear and left Pakistan in November 2013. The land was still in his name. He would be killed by his uncle and the associates if refouled.

3.  The Director rejected her non-refoulement claim on 11/1/2018. His appeal to the TCAB was dismissed on 20/9/2018.

4.  The adjudicator pointed out that the evidence of the land dispute was deficient, confusing and inconsistent. The adjudicator rejected the factual basis of the applicant’s claim. There was no real risk of harm. The applicant told the adjudicator that the dispute had been going on for over 10 years but in his NCF he said it started in 2011.[1] He denied making the allegation in his NCF that his uncle had sold the land to others. His evidence was confusing about the title of the land. He was unable to give reliable information about the court case.

5.  On 27/9/2018, the applicant applied for leave for judicial review of the decision of the TCAB. He did not specify the error in the TCAB decision.

6.  The adjudicator was justified to reject his evidence given the inconsistencies. I agree with the findings of the adjudicator. There was no error of law or procedure. The decision of the TCAB was reasonable. Leave was refused on 2/12/2021.

7.  The applicant filed a summons on 17/12/2021 for extension of time to appeal against the decision of this court. He was out of time for 1 day. In his affirmation, he asserted that he missed the deadline for appeal as he received the decision late.

8.  According to the court record, the decision was sent to his last known address on 2/12/2021. He had not explained the circumstances causing delay.

9.  In considering whether to extend time for appeal, this court will take into account: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the merits of the intended judicial review; (4) prejudice to the respondent.[2]

10.  Although the delay was only 1 day, this alone is not conclusive. As set out in paragraphs 4—6 above, there is no merit in the intended judicial review. I agree with the decision of the TCAB. Having considered all factors, I refuse the application for extension of time to appeal.