RE NAVNEET SINGH

HCAL 2487/2018

[2020] HKCFI 797

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2487 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/Non-Refoulement claims Petition Office (“the Board”).  Having considered his evidence, the Board, by its Decision dated 18 October 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected his appeal and confirmed 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.  He had appeared before this Court.  By Order dated 17 June 2019 (“the Court’s decision”), I 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.  The deadline for him to appeal should be 2 July 2019.  He took out a summons dated 9 September 2019 for time extension for his appeal.

4.  A hearing was fixed for him to attend court for his application on 1 November 2019 and he attended the hearing.

The applicant’s affirmation

5.  The applicant filed an affirmation in support of his application. In his affirmation he said that he did not receive the Court’s decision.  He was unable to explain why this happened.  He also said that since he did not receive the Court’s decision, he did not know the reasons for the Court’s decision.  He understood that he was out of time for his appeal.  He submitted that because of the circumstances above, the Court should grant him the extension of time for him to appeal.

Discussion

6.  Since he said that he did not understand the reasons as set out in the Court’s decision, I explained the reasons to him.  He confirmed that he understood the reasons.  He said that originally, he intended to go back to his own country.  However, after he had obtained the air-ticket, he was told that his life would still be in danger. 

7.  The Court of Appeal in Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702 28 June 2019 held:

“19. The prospect of success of the intended appeal is important; the court will not grant extension of time for a hopeless appeal to be pursued.”

8.  As he had not stated the grounds in support of his appeal, I asked him if he could state what error I had committed in coming to my decision.  He said that he did not have reason to say that I was wrong.

9.  In the circumstances, I find that the applicant is unable to show that he has a reasonable prospect of success in his intended appeal against my decision.  Accordingly, I dismiss his application.