RE GHAFFAR MUHAMMAD

HCAL 1423/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1464

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1423 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

The application

1.  The applicant is an illegal immigrant and he lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”).  By Notice of Decision dated 25 January 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”), 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 dated 3 July 2018 (“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.  By Order dated 8 April 2021 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court refused to grant him leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision for the reason that there was no reasonable prospect of success in his intended judicial review.

3.  The applicant intends to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Court’s decision.  However, he is out of time under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the RHC.  He filed a summons dated 3 May 2021 for extension of time for his appeal.

4.  In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant said that he did not receive the Court’s decision on time and he asked for an extension of time.

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.  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].”

7.  The Court had, in its decision, set out the reasons why it refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

8.  The Board, having considered his evidence, found that there was no evidence to show that he would be subjected to any real risk of harm or being killed if he returned to Pakistan.  Also, the Board found that internal relocation was an option open to him if he returned to Pakistan.

9.  The Court had considered the ground for his application for leave to apply for judicial review and dealt with it in its decision.

10.  The Court had considered the Board’s Decision and found that it was without fault.

11.  He has no valid reason in support of his application.

12.  In the circumstances, I find that the applicant is unable to show that he has any reasonable prospect of success in his intended appeal against the Court’s decision.  I refuse to extend time for his appeal.  Accordingly, I dismiss his application.