RE NGUYEN VAN HIEN

HCAL 2340/2018

[2022] HKCFI 3230

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2340 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

The application

1.  The applicant is an illegal immigrant for staying in Hong Kong without permission 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 Decision, 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 Decision.

3.  By Form CALL-1 dated 19 May 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 against the Board’s Decision.

4.  The applicant filed a summons on 7 October 2022 for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time.

5.  In his affirmation in support of his application, he said he had lost his Recognizance Form 8 and it took time for him to obtain another one from the Immigration Department.

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.  The Court shall consider the factors as set out in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam [2016] 2 HKC 393 at para. 27(3) in considering if extension of time should be extended: (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 deadline for appeal is on 2 June 2022 and the delay is 4 months and 5 days. I shall consider the merits of the case.

8.  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].”

9.  The applicant claimed that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his creditor because he was unable to repay his debt.

10.  By way of the Director’s Decisions, the Director refused the applicant’s claim for the reason that his claim was not substantiated. He appealed to the Board.

11.  The Board, having considered the applicant’s evidence, found that there was no evidence to show that he had suffered torture or pain that met the threshold of BOR 3 risk. The matter is only a personal monetary dispute between him and his creditor without any involvement of the state. State protection is available to him and internal relocation is also a viable alternative. The Board therefore dismissed his appeal.

12.  The applicant has failed to raise any valid reason to show that there is any realistic prospect of success in his intended appeal.

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