|
HCAL 2035 of 2019
[2025] HKCFI 142
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
NO. 2035 OF 2019
____________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Tala Inacio Mario |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board /
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Putative
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
Director of Immigration |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
_____________
| Before: |
Deputy High Court Judge K. W. Lung in Chambers |
| Date of Decision: |
13 February 2025 |
_______________
D E C I S I O N
_______________
The application
1. The applicant is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission 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 29 November 2024 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that there is no realistic prospect of success in his intended application.
4. The Court’s decision was sent to the applicant on 29 November 2024 at his last known address. He is deemed to receive the Court’s decision.
5. The time for filing the notice of appeal expired on 13 December 2024.
6. By summons filed on 17 December 2024, the applicant applied for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time. He is late for 4 days.
7. In support of his application, the applicant said that he did not get the Court’s decision on time.
Discussion
8. Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A and Order 53, rule 3(3) of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reason, I decide to determine this application on paper without an oral hearing[1].
9. The Court shall consider the factors as set out in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam [2016] 2 HKC 393 at para. 27(3) in considering if extension of time should be extended: (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 his case.
10. 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].”
11. The applicant claimed that if refouled, if refouled, he would be harmed or even killed by his uncle due to a land dispute.
12. The Director rejected his claim because it was not substantiated. He appealed to the Board.
13. Having considered the evidence, the Board found that his claim was unfounded and dismissed his appeal.
14. There is no valid reason from the applicant to challenge the Board’s Decision. It is trite law that the Court should not interfere with the Board’s findings without good reason.
15. There is no valid reason from the applicant to challenge the Court’s decision. There is no merit in his application.
16. In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for his appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.
| |
(K.W. Lung)
Deputy High Court Judge
|
The applicant was unrepresented.
[1] Ogbozor Tochukwu Eugene v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Director of Immigration [2022] HKCA 607, Hon Kwan VP and G Lam JA, 6 May 2022:
“16. … … In respect of his complaint of no oral hearing, the judge is entitled to decide the matter on paper pursuant to the Order 32, rules 11 and 11A and Order 53 rule 3(3) of the Rules of the High Court.”
|