RE KHAN ASAD ALI

HCAL 3005/2018

[2021] HKCFI 3622

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 3005 OF 2018

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

D E C I S I O N

_____________________

1.  The applicant is from Pakistan[1]. He was arrested on 14/1/2016 for illegal remaining in Hong Kong. He filed the non-refoulement claim in this case on 17/1/2016. He feared that his cousin would harm or kill him because of the land dispute.

2.  About 2003, the applicant inherited a plot of farm land from his father.  One day, the applicant’s cousin and the gang threatened to kill him if he refused to transfer the land to his cousin.  He was afraid and fled.There were 5-6 similar incidents during 2005-2006.  He managed to escape

3.  The Director rejected his claim on 7/2/2018. The TCAB dismissed his appeal on 10/12/2018.

4.  The adjudicator pointed out that the applicant remained at his home village from 2003 to 2015. He was never attacked because of the land dispute. After he left Pakistan, his cousin had not attempted to take the land. His family was still farming on it. Besides, he was inconsistent whether he stayed in Karachi or Rawalpindi before he left Pakistan. Initially, he asserted that his cousin associated with PML[2] which was then the majority party. In 2018, he told the adjudicator that his cousin changed allegiance to PTI[3] which had formed the majority government. There was no supporting evidence. The adjudicator found that this was an attempt to instill some political flavor in his claim.

5.  The applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review on 28/12/2018. He pointed out that his life was in danger and requested to stay in Hong Kong until the problem was solved.This court agreed with the adjudicator that the applicant was not credible in various important aspects. There was no error of law or procedure.  The decision was reasonable. This court refused leave on 19/4/2021.

6.  The applicant filed a summons on 4/6/2021 for extension of time to appeal against the decision of this court.  He was out of time for more than 4 weeks.

7.  In his affirmation, the applicant indicated that he did not receive the decision of this court.  According to the court record, the decision was sent to the same address as in his summons dated 4/6/2021. There was no change of address. There was no return of mail. 

8.  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.[4]

9.  The applicant is out of time for more than 4 weeks.  It is substantial. His explanation is unsatisfactory. I have grave doubt about it. In addition, I also consider the merits of the intended judicial review.

10.  As set out in paragraph 4 above, the adjudicator found that the applicant was not credible.  The applicant failed to prove his claim.  I agree with the decision of the TCAB.  In my judgment, there is no merit in the intended judicial review.

11.  Having considered all relevant factors, I refuse the application for extension of time to appeal.