RE RAVINDER KUMAR

HCAL 283/2017

[2021] HKCFI 1221

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 283 OF 2017

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

The application

1.  The applicant is an illegal immigrant for overstaying and he lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). By Notice of Decisions respectively dated 11 March 2016 and 17 March 2017, (“the Director’s Decisions”), 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 dated 22 May 2017 (“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. By Order dated 29 September 2017 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court refused to grant him leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision for the reason that there was no realistic prospect of success in his intended judicial review.

3.  The applicant intends to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Court’s decision. However, he is out of time under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the RHC. He filed a summons on 1 February 2021 for extension of time for his appeal.

4.  In his affirmation in support of his application, he said that he missed the time for appeal and asked the court to extend time for him to appeal.

Discussion

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

6.  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].”

7.  The Court had in its decision, set out the reasons why it refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

8.  The Board found that the applicant was not a truthful witness. It simply rejected his evidence on the facts of his case. In other words, the applicant has no factual basis in support of his application.

9.  The Court had considered the grounds for his application for leave to apply for judicial review and dealt with them in its decision.

10.  The Court had considered the Board’s Decision and found that it was without fault.

11.  His ground for this application is not valid.

12.  In the circumstances, I find that the applicant is unable to show that he has any reasonable prospect of success in his intended appeal against the Court’s decision. I refuse to extend time for his appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.