RE MR. NAHAR SINGH

HCAL 601/2017

[2019] HKCFI 318

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 601 OF 2017

___________________________

___________________________

___________________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________________

1.  There is a Summons before the court filed by the Applicant on 21 December 2018 (it was dated “23 November”).

2.  The Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the refusal of his non-refoulement claim was dismissed by this court on 21 June 2018.  It is evident that the Applicant would like to take the matter further, which he had confirmed at the hearing this morning.  I therefore treat this as an application for leave to appeal out of time.

3.  The Applicant contends that he did not receive a copy of the Form CALL-1 or the Order dismissing his leave application.  Those documents were sent to the address of the Applicant stated in his Form 86 by post on respectively 21 and 28 June 2018.  The Applicant told the court that he had moved to a new address in March 2018, and for 6 months before that he did not have a fixed place of abode because the welfare to him was cut off. 

4.  The Applicant said that he had informed the Immigration Department about his new address but it slipped his mind to do so with the court. 

5.  The Form 86 was dated 7 September 2017.  If what the Applicant said is right, he would have moved out of the address stated on that document shortly after filing it.  Given the importance of this matter, his explanation for not informing the court about his situation is quite unconvincing.

6.  As regards the merits of the Applicant’s intended appeal, there is a complaint in his affirmation filed on 21 December 2018 that he was deprived of a hearing to clarify the situation in his country.  There was no request in the Form 86 for an oral hearing, and the application was dealt with on paper accordingly. 

7.  In any case, the difficulty with the leave application was that despite having had a hearing before the Appeal Board the Applicant was found to be an unreliable witness, and none of the grounds of non-refoulement was substantiated. 

8.  The Applicant said at the hearing that he would like to furnish some documents regarding his case.  When he was asked why those documents were not furnished to the Immigration Department or the Appeal Board, the Applicant said that he had told his story to them and if leave is granted he would get some more documents. 

9.  I do not believe that the submission advanced by the Applicant can improve the merits of his case.  This is a very late application for extension of time.  There is neither a convincing explanation for the delay nor merits in the intended appeal.

10.  In the premises, this Summons is dismissed.