RE GURPREET SINGH

HCAL 747/2017

[2020] HKCFI 1646

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 747 OF 2017

__________________

__________________

_______________

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 dated 17 August 2017 (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected his appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.

2.  Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court, the applicant filed Form No 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.  He had appeared before the Court.  By Order dated 9 August 2018 (“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 reasonable 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), RHC.  He filed a summons on 7 May 2020 for extension of time for his appeal.

4.  His reason for the delay is that he did not receive the court’s decision. He said that the Court’s decision was unfair and unreasonable.  Also, he did not have legal representation.

Discussion

5.  In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702 §19, the Court of Appeal held that in order to determine whether time should be extended for the applicant to appeal the Court’s decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review to the Court of Appeal, the prospect of success of the intended appeal is important and the court will not grant extension of time for a hopeless appeal to be pursued.

6.  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.

7.  It is quite obvious that the Board rejected his appeal because, after considering his evidence, the Board agreed with the Director that there was no evidence to show that there was a real risk of him being arbitrarily deprived of life, having the death penalty imposed on him or otherwise being deprived of the right under BOR 2 [19].

8.  To say that the Court’s decision is unfair and unreasonable is only the applicant’s opinion without any evidence in support of it.

9.  The Court of Appeal in Re Ahmed Syed Rafiq [2018] HKCA 178 held that the applicant is not entitled to free legal representation at every stage of the proceedings as he had already had duty lawyer’s service at the screening stage [22].

10.  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.