RE UMAR SHAHZAD

HCAL 152/2018

[2020] HKCFI 1380

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 152 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 by its Decision and Further Decision respectively dated 20 May 2016 and 24 February 2017 rejected his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement claims Petition Office (“the Board”).  Having considered his evidence, the Board by its decision dated 31 October 2017 (“the Board’s Decisions”), rejected his appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decisions.

2.  Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), on 2 February 2018, the applicant filed Form No. 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.  However, his application was beyond three months from the date of the Board’s Decision and therefore was out of time.  There was a delay of only two days.  He had appeared before the Court.  By Order dated 3 September 2019 (“the Court’s decision”), Deputy Judge Lam refused to grant him extension of time for applying for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision for the reason that there was no reasonable prospect of success in his intended judicial review as the Deputy Judge said in paragraph 44 of the Court’s decision that the Board had considered all the materials before him and it did not accept the applicant had any real risk that warranted non‑refoulement protection; that the Adjudicator had proper basis for his finding and decision which were not Wednesbury unreasonable; that he made no error of law and there was no procedural unfairness.  The Deputy Judge also found that the applicant failed to show any good reason to justify the delay.

3.  In the Court’s decision, the Court had also made an order that since the decision was an interlocutory order, the applicant had to apply for leave to this Court if he wanted to appeal against that interlocutory order.  This is the applicant’s application.

Discussion

4.  The applicant failed to appear me on 12 November 2019.  There was no explanation for his absence.

5.  In the circumstances, I find that the applicant is unable to show that he has a reasonable prospect of success in his intended appeal against my decision.  Accordingly, I dismiss his application.