RE ATWAL RAVINDER SINGH

HCAL 2963/2018

[2022] HKCFI 120

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2963 OF 2018

_____________________

_____________________

_____________________

D E C I S I O N

_____________________

1.  The applicant is from India. He came to Hong Kong on 1/1/2013 as a visitor. He overstayed until he was arrested on 18/10/2013. He lodged the non-refoulement claim in this case on 19/10/2013.

2.  The basis of his claim was that he would be in danger if returned to India because of his affiliation with the Congress Party (“CP”). He was the president of the student association of the “CP” in 2012. Since August, he was attacked and threatened by some gangsters several times. They asked him to change allegiance to the Akali Dal Party. He was injured during an attack in September. He was hospitalized for a week. Since then, he had to hide at various places to avoid the gangsters. In December 2012, he left India for Hong Kong.

3.  His non-refoulement claim was rejected on 2/11/2017 by the Director. The appeal was dismissed by the TCAB on 20/12/2018.

4.  The adjudicator found that there were important inconsistencies in his evidence. He told the adjudicator that he was asked to sell drugs by the gangsters but this was not mentioned in the NCF. He believed that the police would not assist him as the Akali Dal Party was in power. However, he asserted that they were all students and did not involve in politics. He told the adjudicator he could recognize the gangsters but in his NCF he said the stalkers were strangers. The adjudicator rejected his evidence and dismissed his appeal.

5.  On 24/12/2018, the applicant filed the leave application for judicial review of the decision of the TCAB.

6.  This court agreed with the findings of the adjudicator. There were serious inconsistencies. The applicant was not credible. There was no error of law or procedure. The TCAB decision was reasonable. Leave was refused on 19/8/2021.

7.  The applicant filed a summons on 15/9/2021 for extension of time to appeal against the decision of this court. He was out of time for about 2 weeks.

8.  In his affirmation, the applicant indicated that he did not receive the decision of this court. He only learned of the decision from the Immigration Department on 9/9/2021. He had no knowledge of the procedures and had to rely on other’s assistance.

9.  In considering whether to extend time for appeal, this court will take into account: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the merits of the intended judicial review; (4) prejudice to the respondent.[1]

10.  According to the court record, the decision was sent to his last known address on 19/8/2021. There was no return of mail. The applicant filed a notice of change of address on 10/9/2021. This was after the asserted date he learned of the decision. There was no other detail as to when he moved to the new address. In any event, the applicant has a duty to update his address with this court. He must bear the consequence of any problem in the mail because of the change of address.

11.  At this stage, the prospect of the intended judicial review is also an important factor.

12.  As set out in paragraph 4-6 above, the adjudicator rejected the evidence as there were important inconsistencies. I agree with the decision of the TCAB. In my judgment, there is no merit in the intended judicial review.

13.  Having considered all relevant factors, I refuse the application for extension of time to appeal.