RE CHINEDU EMMANUEL ABALOGU

HCAL 2693/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1997

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2693 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 Decisions.

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 25 May 2021 (“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 16 June 2021 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision.

5.  In his affidavit in support of his application, he said that he received the Court’s decision on time.

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.  By the Board’s Decision, the Board rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decisions for the reason that it did not believe the facts of his case.  The Board’s reasons are set out below; the references are in the Board’s Decision.

(1)  At the hearing, despite being asked several times on what his boss had said to him, he did not mention he was accused of being responsible for the deaths of his boss’s children. [40]

(2)  The Board, for the reasons given in paragraphs 41-43, did not believe that his boss had given one million US currency to him to deal with his business in Hong Kong since the applicant is unable to read or write. [45]

(3)  The Board rejected his claim that he was threatened with death should he return to Nigeria. [46]

(4)  The Board did not accept his claim of fear of harm by his former boss or persons associated with him should he return to Nigeria. [47]

(5)  The Board was not satisfied that he had established that there were substantial grounds which supported the conclusion that he would face a real risk of ill-treatment as claimed if he returned to Nigeria. [48]

9.  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.