RE TITU MIA

HCAL 2884/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1915

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2884 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 30 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 21 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 his affirmation in support of his application, he said that the Court had not considered his situation deeply. He also said that he could not go back to his own country because his enemy would kill him.

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 Director took the view that there were no substantial grounds for believing that he would be harmed or killed upon his return to India [20]; that state protection was available to him [29] and internal relocation was an option open to him [30].  His claim under BOR 2 risk was not established.  References are those in the Director’s Decision.

9.  The Board considered the applicant’s evidence and found that the level of harm he suffered was low; that future risk of harm from BNP was very low and motivation for BNP to harm him for extortion was low; that his evidence in relation to the BNP’s extortions and assaults was inconsistent and was not credible; that his evidence of being assaulted seriously and he fell unconscious at the shop and at home was inconsistent and therefore not credible; that internal relocation was an option open to him and that state protection should be available as his evidence that his brother reported the incidents to police was not credible.  See paragraphs 33-54 of the Board’s Decision.

10.  The applicant has not been able to say in what respect had the Board erred in its Decision.

11.  His reasons are only his opinions without any evidence in support of them.

12.  He is unable to show that he has any realistic chance of success in his intended appeal.

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