RE GURPREET SINGH

HCAL 2680/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1875

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2680 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 26 November 2018 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.  By Order dated 6 May 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 21 May 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 only received the court’s letter from his landlord and his life would be in peril back in his own country.

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.  Paragraph 93 succinctly summarizes the reasons:

“93. Taking all these matters into account, it is not considered that the Appellant faces a high risk that he will be subjected to harm should he return to India. This conclusion is strengthened in light of the Appellant’s concession that he could now return to India without fear and also relocate elsewhere in the country without fear.”

9.  The applicant has not been able to say in what respect had the Board erred in its decision.  His reasons for this application do 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.