|
HCAL 1686/2018
[2021] HKCFI 1870
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
NO 1686 OF 2018
_____________
| RE: |
AHMAD BILAL |
Applicant |
_____________
Before: Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers
Date of Decision: 26 July 2021
_____________
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 Decision.
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 9 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 26 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 letter until after the time for appeal had lapsed. He had to obtain assistance from the social worker to prepare his appeal.
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 and found that his evidence in relation to his father’s murder was not reliable and that the death certificate of his father was fabricated [62]; that there were inconsistencies in his evidence [70-75]. The Board came to conclusion that all his factual evidence in support of his claim were not accepted and that he did not face a real chance of harm now and in the foreseeable future in Pakistan [76 & 77]. 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.
| |
(K. W. Lung) |
| |
Deputy High Court Judge |
The applicant was unrepresented.
|