RE RIZWAN KHAN

HCAL 2199/2018

[2022] HKCFI 600

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2199 OF 2018

_____________________

_____________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

1.  The applicant is from Pakistan. He sneaked into Hong Kong from China on 2/1/2007. He was arrested on 31/1/2007. He lodged a non-refoulement claim in this case on 25/8/2008.

2.  His father inherited a piece of land in Lahore from his grandfather. After his father passed away, his uncle did not allow his family to live at the joint family house built on the land. His uncle used forged documents to obtain title of the land. He was unable to locate the genuine title documents. In 2004, his uncle and cousins assaulted him during a negotiation. He was stabbed twice. His uncle threatened to kill him. After recovery, he and his family moved to various villages to avoid his uncle who persistently harassed his family. He finally left Pakistan in September 2006 for China. He sneaked into Hong Kong on 2/1/2007.

3.  The Director rejected his claim on 18/12/2014 and 24/2/2017.  The adjudicator dismissed his appeal on 18/10/2016 and 8/10/2018.

4.  The adjudicator found that the applicant was not credible. The applicant had one uncle who had passed away in 2000. The attack by this uncle in 2004 could not have occurred. He claimed to be the eldest son and was targeted. However, it transpired that he had an elder brother a few years his senior. He told the Director that he moved to various villages for a few years to avoid his uncle. He told the adjudicator he moved around for a few months only. He contradicted himself as to when he contacted the UNHCR in his NCF.

5.  On 11/10/2018, the applicant applied for leave for judicial review of the TCAB decision. In his affirmation, he complained that the adjudicator failed to consider all evidence and the risk to his life.

6.  The applicant’s inconsistency was significant. I agreed with the adjudicator that he was not credible. The factual basis of his claim was not plausible. There was no real risk of harm if he returned to Pakistan. There was no error of law or procedure, the TCAB decisions are rational. I refused leave for the intended judicial review on 18/11/2021

7.  The applicant filed a summons on 10/1/2022 for extension of time to appeal against the decision of this court.  He was out of time for more than 5 weeks. In his affirmation, he explained that he had no knowledge about the deadline of appeal. He had insufficient resources.

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.[1]

9.  The delay was substantial. Ignorance of the time limit is not a strong reason. He had experience conducting an appeal in the TCAB. He should be aware of similar time limit. In addition, he failed to explain why it took him more than 5 weeks to process the appeal. Lack of resources could not fully explain the substantial delay.

10.  At this stage, the merits of the intended judicial review are also important. As set out in paragraphs 4 & 6 above, there is no merit in the intended judicial review.  Having considered all factors, I refuse extension of time for appeal.