RE IQBAL ZAFAR

HCAL 2564/2018

[2022] HKCFI 1787

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2564 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, by his Decision, 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 Form CALL-1 dated 28 February 2022 (the “Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that there is no realistic prospect of success in his intended judicial review. The deadline for him to file his notice of appeal is 14 March 2022 (within 14 days after such order). The period between 7 March and 11 April 2022 should not count as the Court Registry was closed because of COVID-19 virus. The deadline is therefore deferred to 19 April 2022 (8 days after 11 April 2022).

4.  The applicant filed a summons on 30 May 2022 for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time.

5.  In his affirmation in support of his application, he said he was late because of his lack of knowledge and insufficient sources.

Discussion

6.  Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A of the RHC[1], 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.

8.  The delay is about one and a half month, which is significant. I shall now consider the merits of his intended appeal.

9.  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].”

10.  The applicant claimed that if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by Zaman and his associates because of the political dispute.

11.  By the Director Decision, the Director refused his claim for the reason that his claim was not substantiated. He appealed to the Board. He was legally represented before the Board.

12.  Viewing the evidence in totality, the Board refused to accept that the applicant and his family were involved in any political parties; that he had any involvement in the fight which led to the death of his cousin in 1992; that he was named in a police report as relating to the incident; that he was a target of Awan group because of his affiliation with Mughal; that he was approached by Zaman for sensitive information and that he was ever a target of harm or threats from Zaman [52]. On the basis of lack of credibility, the Board rejected the applicant’s claim and dismissed his appeal. The references refer to the Board’s Decision.

13.  The applicant is unable to raise any valid ground to challenge the Board’s Decision. Nor can he point out any error on the part of the Court in the assessment of his application.

14.  There is no realistic prospect of success in his intended appeal. I therefore refuse to extend time for him to appeal and dismiss his application.