|
HCAL 2/2019
[2024] HKCFI 1615
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
NO 2 OF 2019
_____________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
Joshi Mulame Karam Singh |
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: |
26 June 2024 |
____________________
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 26 January 2023 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that there is no realistic prospect of success in his intended application. The Court’s decision was sent to the applicant on his request on 20 February 2024 without being returned by the Post Office.
4. The deadline for appeal is on 6 March 2024.
5. By summons filed on 18 April 2024, the applicant applied for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time. He is 1 month and 12 days out of time.
6. In support of his application, the applicant filed an affirmation, in which he said he is not satisfied with the Board’s Decision and his life will be in danger if he returns to his country.
Discussion
7. Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reason, I decide to determine this application on paper without an oral hearing.
8. 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.
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 said that if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by Raman Singala who was connected with the Shiromani Akali Dal Party.
11. The Director rejected his claim because it was not substantiated. He appealed to the Board. His lawyer informed the Board that the Board may dispose of his appeal without a hearing.
12. Having considered the evidence, the Board found that the applicant’s evidence was not credible and dismissed his appeal.
13. There is no valid reason from the applicant to challenge the Board’s Decision.
14. 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.
|