RE HOANG VINH HOA

HCAL 2857/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1934

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2857 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 12 December 2018 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.  By Order dated 5 August 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 April 2021 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision.

5.  In his summons, he said that his situation is still dangerous because he is unable to repay the loan shark, who would use extreme means such as death punishment to get back his money.

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.  By the Board’s Decision, the Board rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.  The Board had given the reasons below in its Decision.  The references in brackets are in the Board’s Decision.

(1) The treatments he had been subjected to did not amount to the minimum level of severity [23].

(2) The matter concerned a private money lending between the creditor and himself and there was no state involvement, directly or indirectly [24].

(3) There was no evidence that state protection was not available to him [36].

(4) Internal relocation was an option open to him [58].

9.  The applicant has not been able to say in what respect had the Board erred in its decision.  His reason for this application does not assist him.

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.