RE GURPREET SINGH

HCAL 1932/2018

[2021] HKCFI 2069

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO  1932 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”).  The Director, by his Decisions, rejected his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”).  Having considered his evidence, the Board, by its Decisions (the “Board’s Decisions”), rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decisions.

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 Decisions.

3.  By Order dated 31 July 2020 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that there was no reasonable prospect of success in his intended application.

4.  The applicant filed a summons dated 30 June 2021 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision.

5.  In his affirmation in support of his application, he asked for extension for appeal as he has not received the Court’s decision.

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 without an oral hearing.

7.  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].”

8.  By the Board’s Decision dated 13 March 2015, the Board rejected his appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision on Torture risk, the BOR 3 risk and the Persecution risk.  By the Board’s Decision dated 16 August 2018, the Board rejected his appeal and confirmed the Director’s Further Decision on the BOR 2 risk.

9.  In its Decision dated 13 March 2015, the Board considered the applicant’s evidence and for the reasons set out in paragraphs 8-40, it came to the conclusion that his evidence in relation to medical malpractice of Dr. Bajrang was not acceptable; that it was not unreasonable for police not to accept his complaint against the doctor; that there was no evidence that Amana’s uncle was still interested in him and that Amana was killed in the incident as he alleged [41-46] and finally, that the option of internal relocation was available to him if he returned to India [71].

10.  The Board’s Decision dated 16 August 2018 deals with his appeal against the Director’s Further Decision on BOR 2 risk.  The Board found that he filed his Notice of Appeal late for 7 months and 9 days [18]: Director’s Further Decision is dated 19 January 2017 and the filing of the Notice of Appeal is 13 September 2017.  The Board considered section 37 ZT of the Ordinance and concluded that there was no acceptable reason for the late filing of the Notice of Appeal [18].  The Director had invited the applicant to supply additional information for his assessment of BOR 2 risk.  The applicant did not give the Director any additional information. The Board refused to extend time for him to file the Notice of Appeal against the Director’s Further Decision.  His appeal was in effect, dismissed.

11.  The applicant is unable to show that he has any reasonable prospect of success in his intended appeal.

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