RE BUTT MUHAMMAD FAISAL

HCAL 1999/2018

[2022] HKCFI 437

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1999 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 Decision, 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 Form CALL-1 dated 7 January 2022 (the “Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that there is no realistic prospect of success in his intended judicial review application.

4.  The applicant filed a summons on 24 January 2022 for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time.

5.  In his summons, he said:

“To extend the time for appeal as I have missed the time to apply in time. Because I got my judgment late in my mail box. So please give me one more chance.”

Discussion

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

7.  In AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015, §27 the Court of Appeal held that for extension of time for making the application for leave to apply for judicial review, the Court has to consider (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. The delay of 3 days only. Form CALL-1 was sent to his last known address on the same day of the Order. Nevertheless, I shall consider the merits of the case.

8.  The applicant’s grounds in support of his non-refoulement claim is that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by members of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (“PMLN”). 

9.  The Director found that the level of risk of him being harmed or killed by the four enemies upon refoulement was assessed to be low; that state protection was available to him and that internal relocation was an option open to him. He appealed to the Board.

10.  The Board considered his written evidence and his oral testimony before it.  It evaluated the applicant’s evidence against his oral testimony on material aspects of the applicant’s claim. It found that the applicant’s evidence was inherently implausible, which did not corroborate with the country of origin information.  As a result, the Board found that the applicant had not established a non-refoulement claim.  In any event, the Board found that he was able to relocate internally to city like Karachi [175]-[180].        

11.  The applicant is unable to set out any valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision. Nor can he point out any error on the part of this Court in the assessment of his application.

12.  There is no realistic prospect of success in his intended appeal. I therefore refuse to extend time for him to appeal and dismiss his application.