RE UDDIN MOHAMMED NAZIM

HCAL 2912/2018

[2021] HKCFI 2620

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2912 OF 2018

_____________________

_____________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

1.  The applicant is from Bangladesh. He entered Hong Kong illegally from China on 11/6/2015. He was arrested by the police on 21/6/2015. He lodged the non-refoulement claim in this case on 23/6/2015. The Director rejected his claim on 13/12/2016. His appeal was dismissed on 6/12/2018 by the TCAB.

2.  The applicant feared that the AL[1] members would harm or kill him if he returned to Bangladesh.

3.  The incident arose from a land dispute.  About 2008, Ahmed forged some deeds and claimed that his family land belonged to the AL.  Ahmed was a leader of the AL in his village.  This dispute started in his father’s time.  In fear of violence, his father and elder brothers had fled.  He did not know their whereabouts.

4.  The AL members subsequently filed a case in court alleging that he and his elder brothers had wrongly occupied the land.  He had submitted title documents to the court but there was no ruling yet.  No one could farm on the land until there was a verdict.

5.  Later, he also fled to Dhaka for fear of harm.  He worked in a factory for 4 years.  One day, he heard that some AL members planned to attack him.  He obtained a passport and left Dhaka for China on 16/12/2012.  He subsequently sneaked into Hong Kong in 2015.  He had not reported the incident to the police. He could not relocate as he had no friend or relatives elsewhere.

6.  The TCAB found that the land dispute had not led to violence in the past nor did it arise from political enmity.  The applicant had little knowledge of the Islamist platform of JI.[2] At the highest, the applicant was only a low level member.  He would not be attacked.  There was no hostility all along.  His mother and siblings were never harassed by the AL though remained living in the village.

7.  The land dispute did not arise from difference of political opinions.  There was no real risk of CIDTP or torture. The adjudicator dismissed the appeal on all grounds on 6/12/2018.[3]

8.  On 19/12/2018, he filed the leave application for judicial review of the TCAB decision.  In his affirmation in support, he did not make any specific complaint.

9.  This court refused leave on 7/4/2021.  This court agreed with the analysis of the adjudicator.  It was logical based on the evidence.  This court found no error of law or procedure.  The decision was reasonable.

10.  The applicant filed a summons on 23/4/2021 for extension of time to appeal against the refusal of leave.  He was about 2 days out of time.  In his affirmation, he did not make any specific complaint.

11.  In considering whether to extend time for appeal against the refusal of leave to apply for judicial review, this court will take into account: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted.[4]

12.  There was a delay of 2 days.  He did not give any explanation.  The decision of this court was sent on 7/4/2021 to the same address as in the summons.  There was no return of mail.

13.  Notwithstanding the short delay, the merits of the intended judicial review is most important at this stage [5].

14.  I agree with the decision of the adjudicator.  The applicant’s evidence could not support the asserted fear.  There was no basis that the dispute arose from any political issue.  The intended judicial review was of no merit.  

15.  In the circumstances, I refuse the application for extension of time to appeal.