RE BAL SWARAN SINGH

HCAL 2573/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1762

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2573 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 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 23 January 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 8 June 2020 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision.  The file was misplaced and the application has not been dealt with within the usual time.

5.  In his affirmation in support of his application, he applied for leave to appeal out of time for the reasons that he was late in receiving the court’s letter with the Court’s decision; that he did not understand the court’s procedures; that he had no money to get legal representation and he had to obtain his friend’s advice; that the immigration officer and the adjudicator were ignorant of the real situations in India and they are invited to visit India to understand the situation themselves; that he was lucky to have escaped from India and settle in Hong Kong; that he wished to have a place for his settlement here and that all the facts he had given were true.

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.  The Board considered the applicant’s evidence.  It refused his appeals because it found that he was not a reliable witness and that there was no evidence to support his claim for the reasons below [18].  The references in brackets are those in the Board’s Decision.

(1)  His evidence was multiple hearsay.

(2)  His evidence on the fact of the case was unreasonable and unbelievable.

(3)  There was no evidence on the identities of the deceased in the car.

(4)  All facts were hearsay evidence and could not be relied upon.

(5)  The facts he alleged were only his speculations.

(6)  He had given contradictory evidence.

(7)  He did not ask for non-refoulement protection at the first available opportunity after he had arrived in Hong Kong.

(8)  Internal relocation was an option open to him [36].

9.  The Court had considered the applicant’s grounds for his application.  The applicant had also appeared before the Court.  Upon enquiry by the Court, the applicant confirmed that he was able to speak freely and tell his stories fully before the adjudicator.  It is obvious that the Board rejected all the significant facts in support of his claim.  As such, he has no factual basis for his application.

10.  The applicant has not been able to say in what respect had the Board erred in its Decision.

11.  The Court had considered his reasons in support of his application and had dealt with them in its decision.

12.  His grounds in support of this application are not valid grounds to show that he has any reasonable chance of success in his intended appeal.

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