RE HUSSAIN IMTIAZ

HCAL 2939/2018

[2022] HKCFI 598

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2939 OF 2018

_____________________

_____________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

1.  The applicant is from Pakistan. He left Pakistan on 24/7/2013 and stayed in Shenzhen for 8 months before sneaking into Hong Kong. He was arrested on 11/3/2014. He lodged the non-refoulement claim in this case on 13/3/2014.

2.  The basis of his claim was that he would be harmed or killed by the family of his girlfriend if returned to Pakistan.  In early 2013, he developed a relationship with a girl. He knew very little about her background. After several months, they planned to get marry. However, the family of the girl had arranged another marriage for her. They then eloped to another village. After a month, the family located them and took the girl back. He managed to escape to another city. Later, a friend told him that the girl was killed (“honour killing’). The family of the girl also threatened to kill him. He was afraid and fled to China.

3.  His non-refoulement claim was rejected on 3/2/2017 by the Director.  The appeal was dismissed by the TCAB on 15/11/2018.

4.  The applicant failed to attend the hearing before the TCAB on 21/9/2018. The adjudicator dealt with his appeal based on the available information. She found that the applicant could not recall much about the background of the girl. His evidence could not support any severe pain and suffering which amounted to torture. There was no real risk of CIDTP or risk to his life. The fear asserted was not related to any Convention reasons. 

5.  On 21/12/2018, the applicant filed the leave application for judicial review of the decision of the TCAB.

6.   The adjudicator had followed the procedures in Schedule 1A of the Immigration Ordinance in giving notice to the applicant for explanation of his absence. There was no response from the applicant. The adjudicator was justified in dealing with the appeal in his absence. She had analyzed the available evidence albeit that the applicant did not turn up in the hearing. The applicant was vague about the background of the girl.  I agree with the conclusion of the adjudicator. There was no real risk of harm.

7.   The intended judicial review is not reasonably arguable.  There is no reasonable prospect of success.  There is no good reason to extend the time for the leave application. This court refused leave for the intended judicial review on 12/11/2020.

8.  The applicant filed a summons on 17/3/2021 for extension of time to appeal against the decision of this court.  He was out of time for nearly 3½ months.

9.  In his affirmation, the applicant indicated that he had no knowledge about the time limit and had no resources. 

10.  In considering whether to extend time for appeal, this court will take into account: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the merits of the intended judicial review; (4) prejudice to the respondent.[1]

11.  The applicant had processed his appeal to the TCAB within time. He should be vigilant about the requirement of a time limit. The lack of resources is not a strong ground for delay. In fact, there was no explanation about the whole period which was substantial.

12.  As set out in paragraphs 4 & 6 above, the adjudicator rejected the evidence after analysis.  I agree with her decision.  In my judgment, there is no merit in the intended judicial review.

13.  Having considered all relevant factors, I refuse the application for extension of time to appeal.