RE AHMED MASOOD

HCAL 2413/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1942

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO  2413 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 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 22 July 2020 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that there was no reasonable prospect of success in his intended application.

4.  The applicant filed a summons dated 26 August 2020 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision.  The file was misplaced and the application has not been dealt with within the usual time.

5.  In the attachment of his summons, he said that the Director, the Board and the Judge should know about Taliban and he stands firm against Taliban.  The success rate of refoulement is only about 1%.

Discussion

6.  Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reason, I decide to determine this application without an oral hearing.

7.  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].”

8.  The Board considered the applicant’s evidence.  It came to the conclusions for the reasons set out below.

(1)  For the reasons in paragraph 22, it found “a lot of contradictory and inconsistent statements which made his case unreliable. In particular, he only came to make a big profit and not for non-refoulement protection.”

(2)  “Having carefully considered all the evidence I find that the Petitioner has not made out a case in respect of any of the aforesaid 4 grounds for reasons hereinafter appearing: …” State protection is available upon his return to Pakistan [28].  There was no real risk of torture [28(v)].  There was no evidence of BOR 2 risk [32].  Persecution risk was not established [39], and internal relocation was available to the applicant [44].

The references in brackets are those in the Board’s Decision.

9.  The applicant’s grounds above do not assist his application.  The applicant has not been able to say in what respect had the Board erred in its Decision.

10.  He is unable to show that he has any reasonable prospect of success in his intended appeal.

11.  In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for his appeal.  Accordingly, I dismiss his application.