RE BAPPY SHAHAJADA MURAD

HCAL 1416/2018

[2019] HKCFI 1514

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1416 OF 2018

___________________

___________________

______________________________________

R E A S O N S   F O R   D E C I S I O N

______________________________________

1.  This is the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision by this Court dated 8 March 2019 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 21 June 2018.

2.  The factual background is set out in Form Call-1 dated 8 March 2019 (“the Court’s Decision”).  I shall briefly state the proceedings below:

(1)  The applicant lodged a non-refoulement claim to the Director of Immigration (“the Director”).

(2)  His application was rejected for the reason that his claim was unsubstantiated.

(3)  He appealed to the Board and attended a hearing before the Adjudicator.

(4)  Having considered his evidence, the Board refused his appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.

(5)  He applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision, with the Director as the interested party.

(6)  By the Court’s Decision, this Court refused his application.  He intended to appeal against the Court’s Decision. However, he is out of time, the deadline being on 22 March 2019.

(7)  The applicant took out a summons dated 27 March 2019 for extension of time to appeal.

3.  In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant said that he did not receive the Court’s Decision until 25 March 2019.

4.  The Court of Appeal in Khan Mohammad Shadab [2018] HKCA 897, CAMP 75/2018, 4 December 2018 held:

“10. In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the Court will have regard to: (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: see: Chee Fei Ming v. Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene [2015] 4 HKC 134; and also Wong Yuk Man v. Ng Leung Sing & Anor [2016] HKCU 157 (HCMP 3217/2015, 22.01.2016).”

5.  I agree that the length of delay is short.  However, I have to consider the prospect of the intended appeal in this case.

6.  The applicant, in his affirmation, submitted that he had good grounds of appeal, but it was unnecessary to consider them at this stage.  This is unacceptable as this Court has to consider the merits of his application at this stage.

7.  He also stated in his affirmation that the Board’s Decision was wrong because it did not make proper enquiry and it did not understand his situation.  He invited the Adjudicator to go to Bangladesh for a tour.  The former is his own opinion without any reason in support of it.  It is not practicable or necessary for the Adjudicator to go to Bangladesh to understand his situation.  He has been given ample opportunity of stating his case before the Board.

8.  The applicant appeared before me. I specifically asked him to state his reasons for his application.  He said that his life would be in danger if he returned to Bangladesh. He has no other reasons.

9.  I have explained the reasons in the Court’s Decision to him. The Board did not accept his evidence and also found that the state was not involved in this case. I do not accept that the reasons above show that he has a reasonable prospect of success in his intended appeal.

10.  In the circumstances, I dismiss his application.