RE RAHMAN AZIZUL

HCAL 995/2018

[2019] HKCFI 1661

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 995 OF 2018

_______________

_______________

_____________

DECISION

_____________

1.  The applicant is a Bangladesh national, who had through China, entered Hong Kong illegally on 2 July 2014. He was arrested. On 5 July 2014 he claimed protection from refoulement to Bangladesh on the ground that if he was refouled to his country, he would be harmed or killed by the people of Awami League Party, a rival party of his own party Bangladesh Nationalist Party of which he was an active member.

2.  He lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration, who rejected his claim for the reason that his claim was unsubstantiated.

3.  He appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”), which refused his appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.

4.  He made an ex parte application to this Court for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.  He requested a hearing.  Therefore, a hearing was fixed for him to attend court.  But he was absent on the scheduled date and time.

5.  This Court dismissed his application for want of prosecution.

6.  He took out a summons for extension of time to appeal because he was out of time to appeal.

7.  A hearing was fixed for him to explain why time should be extended for him to appeal.  At the hearing, he explained that he did not receive the notice of hearing from court.

8.  This Court accepted his explanation, set aside the ex parte order dismissing his application and heard his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

9.  Having considered the Board’s Decision and his submissions, this Court by its decision in Form Call-1 dated 15 March 2019 (“Court’s Decision”), refused to give leave to him to apply for judicial review.

10.  The applicant wished to appeal against the Court’s Decision.  But again, he was out of time.

11.  By summons dated 15 May 2019, he applied to this Court for extension of time to appeal.  In his supporting affirmation, he did not state the reason for his delay.  He simply asked for time extension.  He was summonsed to attend court to explain his application.

12.  He appeared before this Court.  He said that he did not understand the Court’s Decision, but he still wanted to appeal against it.

13.  I explained to him the reasons for refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review as set out in the Court’s Decision.  He said that he understood it.  But he had no reason to say the Court’s Decision was wrong.  But he still wanted to appeal against it in order to gain more time to stay in Hong Kong.

14.  His reason for the intended appeal is not acceptable.  I refuse to grant him extension of time to appeal against the Court’s Decision to the Court of Appeal.  Accordingly, I dismiss his application.