RE BALLES JEFFREY GALINDO

HCAL 919/2019

[2022] HKCFI 1936

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 919 OF 2019

_____________

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

The application

1.  The applicant is an illegal immigrant for remaining in Hong Kong without permission. He lodged non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department and was rejected by the Director of Immigration. He appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) and, by the Board’s Decision, his appeal was dismissed by the Board.

2.  The applicant filed Form 86 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.  By Form CALL-1 dated 25 April 2022 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application. The deadline for him to file notice of appeal for appeal is 14 days after the Court’s decision.[1]

4.  The applicant filed a summons on 15 June 2022 together with his affirmation in support of his application for extension of time to file the notice of appeal.

5.  In his affirmation, he said that he did not receive the Court’s decision within 14 days.

Discussion

6.  Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A of the RHC[2], having considered the applicant’s reasons, I decide to determine this application without an oral hearing.

7.  In AW v Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015, §27 the Court of Appeal held that for extension of time for making the application for leave to apply for judicial review, the Court has to consider (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted. I shall consider the merits of the case.

8.  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].”

9.  The applicant claimed that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by Dionisio Geronella (“DG”).

10.  The Director refused his claim for the reason that his claim was not substantiated. He appealed to the Board.

11.  Having considered the applicant’s evidence, the Board found that the applicant’s claim was not substantiated. In particular, the Board noticed that the applicant was evasive as to how many times he returned to the Philippines after 2000 [43]; that his evidence on DG was inconsistent with the country of origin information and inherently contradictory [46]-[51]; and that he could hardly recall the details of the murder at the hearing despite he could remember them in his non-refoulement claim form [52]. On the basis of these findings, the Board refused to accept that the applicant witnessed a murder [55] or that he would be killed in the drug war [60]. In any event, the Board found that he could relocate safely to other cities of the Philippines [62]-[65]. The references refer to the Board’s Decision.

12.  He has given no valid to challenge the Board’s Decision. Nor has he raised any valid reason to show that the Board or this Court is in error.

13.  There is therefore no evidence that shows that the applicant has any realistic prospect of success in his intended judicial review.

14.  I refuse to extend time for him to file the notice of appeal. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.