RE GBETOGO HOUENAGNON PASCAL

HCAL 766/2019

[2022] HKCFI 2154

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 766 OF 2019

_____________

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.  The applicant is an illegal immigrant for remaining in Hong Kong without permission. He lodged non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department and was rejected by the Director of Immigration. He appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”) and, by the Board’s Decision, his appeal was dismissed by the Board.

2.  The applicant filed Form 86 for application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.  By Form CALL-1 dated 7 March 2022 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application. The deadline for him to file notice of appeal for appeal is 14 days after the Court’s decision.[1]

4.  The applicant filed a summons on 5 July 2022 together with his affirmation in support of his application for extension of time to file the notice of appeal.

5.  In his affirmation, he said he did not received letter.

DISCUSSION

6.  Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A of the RHC[2], having considered the applicant’s reasons, I decide to determine this application without an oral hearing.

7.  In AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, 3 November 2015, §27 the Court of Appeal held that for extension of time for making the application for leave to apply for judicial review, the Court has to consider (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 the case.

8.  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].”

9.  The applicant claimed that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by the people of his village because he refused to inherit the Crown of his town.

10.  The Director refused his claim for the reason that his claim was not substantiated. He appealed to the Board.

11.  Having considered the applicant’s evidence, the Board dismissed his appeal as it did not accept his evidence that he is the uncrown king of Ekpe for the reasons that he did not seek protection shortly after arriving in Hong Kong and only did so after one year; that he did not speak French, which is a main language in his country; that he said that his wife and daughter had to change their names in Nigeria but he also said that they were safe in Nigeria, which begs the question why they had to change their names. In the final analysis, the Board did not accept his evidence that he was uncrown king of Ekpe. See paragraphs [48-62]. His claim is therefore without factual basis. The references refer to the Board’s Decision.

12.  There is no valid reason to challenge the Board’s Decision. Nor has he raised any valid reason to show that this Court is in error.

13.  There is therefore no evidence that shows that the applicant has any realistic prospect of success in his intended judicial review.

14.  I refuse to extend time for him to file the notice of appeal. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.