|
HCAL 1046/2020
[2026] HKCFI 15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
NO 1046 of 2020
_____________
BETWEEN
|
Sakhawat Muhammad |
Applicant |
|
and |
|
|
Torture Claims Appeal Board /
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Putative Respondent |
|
and |
|
|
Director of Immigration |
Putative Interested Party |
_____________
| Before: |
Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers |
| Date of Decision: |
21 January 2026 |
_____________
D E C I S I O N
_____________
The application
1. The applicant had applied for withdrawal of his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 6 May 2020 (“the Board’s Decision”). This Court relied on a letter from the Immigration Department dated 23 January 2025, in which the applicant said, “…I want to go back my home country. ...” Since there was no evidence to show that he made the application for withdrawal not on his free volition, this Court acceded to his request, and in order to bar the applicant from making application to restore the claim again from time to time, this Court dismissed his claim, there being no other outstanding matter in the action. This Court made an Order to that effect on 11 March 2025 (“the Court’s decision”).
2. The applicant has now made an application for extension of time to file his notice of appeal against the Court’s decision. In his affirmation in support of his application, he said that he was pressurized to withdraw his application by a person in Hong Kong who later blamed him of indecent assault on his child.
3. He further said that that person has threatened him that he will harm and/or kill him once he returns to his country; and he further threatened his family in Pakistan as well. He claimed that this is a new threat to him, on top of all other problems in his claim.
4. The applicant has given no particulars on how the man in Hong Kong pressurized him into making his withdrawal application. Nor did he explain how that man is able to kill him or threaten his family in Pakistan as well.
5. Therefore, there is no evidence to support his allegation that he was pressurized into making his application for withdrawal of his claim and the new threat. On this basis, his application should be dismissed.
6. However, I shall further consider the merits of his claim and his alleged new threat as mentioned in paragraph 3.
Merits of the applicant’s claim
7. The applicant entered Hong Kong illegally on or about 13 May 2015 and he sought international protection[1] on 26 November 2015 to the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on the basis that, if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by members of the Shia since he was a Sunni Muslim. His brothers were stabbed and killed by his enemies.
8. By a letter dated 26 June 2018 (“the Director’s Decision”), the Director refused his claim.
9. He appealed to the Board. The Board conducted an oral hearing, which took place on 5 December 2019. The applicant had given oral evidence and answered the Board’s questions. Having considered his evidence, the Board made the findings below.
(1) His oral evidence was exceptionally poor and was quite remarkably inconsistent with the information given to the Director. It was so incoherent in relation to central and material matters that it concluded it could not be the truth. [24]
(2) Whereas the applicant gave a statement that his brothers had been murdered in a Shia attack before his flight to Hong Kong, he neither sought to claim it was accurate nor to explain his previous testimony. This destroyed his credibility. [27]-[28]
10. Details of his story are set out in the Board’s Decision. See hyperlink https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/html/vetted/other/en/2020/HCAL001046A_2020_files/the_Board's_Decision.pdf.
11. For the reasons above, by the Board’s Decision, the Board dismissed his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.
12. The applicant filed Form No. 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
13. The applicant then applied to withdraw his application. The Court acceded to his request and dismissed his application by Form CALL-1 dated 11 March 2025 (“the Court’s decision”).
14. The Court’s decision was sent to the applicant on 11 March 2025 at his last known address without being returned from the Post Office. He is deemed to receive the Court’s decision[2].
15. The time for filing the notice of appeal expired on 25 March 2025[3].
16. By summons filed on 25 November 2025, the applicant applied for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time. He is late for 8 months.
17. In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant did not explain his delay in filing the notice of appeal. He has raised the issue that he was pressurized to make his withdrawal application and now he has a new threat from this man in Hong Kong.
Discussion
18. Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A and Order 53, rule 3(3) of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reason, I decide to determine this application on paper without an oral hearing[4].
19. The Court will consider the factors as set out in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam [2016] 2 HKC 393 at para. 27(3) in considering if extension of time should be extended: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted. I shall consider the merits of his case.
20. 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].”
21. The applicant has not raised any ground to challenge the Board’s Decision.
22. He fails to show there is any reasonable prospect of success in his intended application for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
23. The applicant’s allegation of pressure and threat from a man in Hong Kong are bare assertions without any evidence or particulars in support. They are not valid to challenge the Court’s decision.[5]
24. The applicant has given no reason for his delay.
25. There is no valid reason from the applicant to challenge the Board’s Decision or the Court’s decision.
26. 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.
[1] It means protection in respect of the following risks (“the applicable risks”)
a. risk of torture under Part VIIC of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115, (“the Ordinance”) (“Torture risk”);
b. risk under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383 (Risk of violation of the right to life) (“BOR 2 risk”);
c. risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (“CIDTP”) under Article 3 of Section 8 of the HKBOR (“BOR 3 risk”); and
d. risk by reference to the non-refoulement principle under Article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (“Refugee Convention”) (“Persecution risk”)
[2] Re: Ravinder Singh [2023] HKCA 604, Hon Poon CJHC and Cheung JA, 28 April 2023
“17. The applicant had not filed any notice of change of address for service to notify of any changes in his address. According to the Court’s record, the Court’s decision was sent to the applicant’s last known address on 31 March 2022 by ordinary post. He was deemed to receive the same on the next following day, not being a specified day such as a Saturday or a general holiday. He was therefore deemed to have received the Court’s decision on 1 April 2022. ”
[3] The public holidays are included in the 14-day period as per Order 2(5) of the Rules of the High Court
2. Reckoning periods of time (O. 3, r. 2)
(5) Where, apart from this paragraph, the period in question, being a period of 7 days or less, would include a specified day, that day shall be excluded.
(35 of 1998 s. 5; 18 of 2016 s. 5)
[4] Ogbozor Tochukwu Eugene v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Director of Immigration [2022] HKCA 607, Hon Kwan VP and G Lam JA, 6 May 2022:
“16. … … In respect of his complaint of no oral hearing, the judge is entitled to decide the matter on paper pursuant to the Order 32, rules 11 and 11A and Order 53 rule 3(3) of the Rules of the High Court.”
[5] The Court of Appeal in Salim Ahmed alias MD Salim [2020] HKCA 244 held:
“20. … … general assertions or propositions of law cannot assist an appellant when he fails to condescend to the requisite particulars related to the facts of his case: Re Mizan Sikder [2019] HKCA 20 and Ibrahim v Simon Russell [2019] HKCA 1327.” See also Re Haider Khalil [2021] HKCA 223 [16].”
|