RE SHAIFUL AHMED KHAN

HCAL 1273/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1921

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1273 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 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.  By Order dated 16 March 2021 (“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 15 June 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 had not received the Court’s decision on time.

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.  The Board considered the applicant’s evidence.  It set out its reasons in its Decision as follows.

(1)  The applicant’s evidence in relation to the facts he alleged was tested by the Board thoroughly and the Board found that he was not a witness of truth and he had fabricated claims in relation to his association with the other AL people. [41]

(2)  He was evasive in giving evidence. [42]

(3)  He exaggerated his alleged position in the BNP or Jubo Dal. [43]

(4)  The Board found his evidence not reliable and rejected all his claims on the factual basis. [40-54]

(5)  For those reasons, the Board considered that there was no real risk he would face any of the proscribed forms of harm should he return to Bangladesh. [56]

References are those in the Board’s Decision.

9.  The applicant has not been able to say in what respect had the Board erred in its Decision.

10.  He is unable to show that he has any reasonable prospect of success in his intended appeal.

11.  In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for his appeal.  Accordingly, I dismiss his application.