RE SHAH YASIR

HCAL 1215/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1652

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1215 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 Decision.

2.  Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the applicant filed Form No. 86 dated 28 June 2018 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.  By Order dated 1 March 2021 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that there was no reasonable chance of success in the applicant’s intended application.

4.  The applicant filed a summons dated 26 March 2021 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision.

5.  In his affirmation in support of his application, he said that he did not receive the Court’s decision.  According to the court’s record, the letter was returned from the Post Office.  After clarification with the Immigration Department, the Court’s decision was sent to the applicant again on 12 April 2021.  This letter has not been returned undelivered.

6.  To date, the applicant is out of time to file his Notice of Appeal, his application for appeal out of time will be dealt with.

Discussion

7.  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.

8.  The Board had considered his appeal.  It rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision for the reasons below.  References are those in the Board’s Decision.

(1)    The applicant had given inconsistent evidence with discrepancies. [33-34]

(2)    His allegations were not supported by objective evidence. [57]

(3)    For reasons given, the Board found that he was not a reliable witness and that no reliance could be placed on his evidence.  He was given a chance to respond and supplement the flaws and inconsistencies identified at the hearing, but he chose not to give and [any] answer. [62]

(4)    There was no or no reliable evidence that the two alleged assaults on the him having taken place. [63]

(5)    For the reasons, his claim based upon Persecution risk [107], BOR 3 risk [108], BOR 2 risk [109] and Torture risk [110] failed.

9.  There is no reason from him as to in what respect has the Board erred in its decisions.

10.  In the circumstances, I find that the applicant is unable to show that he has any reasonable prospect of success in his intended appeal against the Court’s decision.  I refuse to extend time for his appeal.  Accordingly, I dismiss his application.