RE LAKHWINDER SINGH

HCAL 320/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1900

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 320 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 Decision (“the Board’s 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 Order dated 3 June 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 19 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 said that he did not receive the Court’s decision and he was out of time.  He had no knowledge of the legal procedures and he did not understand the Court’s decision.  He asked for a hearing so that the Court’s decision be read and explained to him.

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, knowing that the applicant had asked for a hearing.  I make this decision notwithstanding his request because the hearing should not be used for reading the Court’s decision to him.  He should obtain assistance to understand the Court’s decision himself before he decided to appeal.  There has been plenty of time for him to do so as the application has been delayed.  I do not believe that he does not understand the Court’s decision now.  However, he has not submitted any further grounds in support of his application.  To set down for a hearing for the applicant’s purpose is a waste of time and costs, which is against the spirit of the Civil Justice Reform.

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 his case and it seems that it did not question the applicant’s stories.  On that basis, it found that it was almost four years since the last election in March 2014.  If the appellant were to return to India and if he desisted from taking any part in the politics of that area, he should be able to remain safe because the SAD people would have no reason to fear for his return and harm him.  If, however, he indulged in a purely political tussle against the SAD, he should not have any reasons to fear that the SAD people would take any drastic action against him, like killing or wounding him [19].  In any event, the Board found that the option of relocation was available to him [31].  The references are those in the Board’s Decision.

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

10.  He is unable to show that he has any reasonable chance of success in his intended appeal.

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