RE PRADEEP KUMAR

HCAL 2710/2018

[2021] HKCFI 2144

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2710 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, by his Decisions, rejected his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”).  Having considered his evidence, the Board, by its Decisions (the “Board’s Decisions”), 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 Decisions.

3.  By Order dated 2 June 2021 (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 12 July 2021 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision.

5.  In his affirmation in support of his application, he said that he had no means to employ a lawyer himself and was of the view that he had good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered at this stage.

Discussion

6.  Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A of the RHC, 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.

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.  By the Board’s First Decision, the Board rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision on the Torture risk, BOR 3 risk and Persecution risk.  The Board found that the applicant’s evidence was incongruent in relation to the land dispute and Surinder’s oppression on him [24]; that his evidence was incoherent or illogically in relation to police fabrication of dangerous drugs against him [26]; that he would not face a real and existing risk of torture from Surinder or the police [29].  On the same bases, the Board rejected his claim on BOR 3 and Persecution risks.

10.  By its Second Decision, the Board found that the applicant had no evidence to show that he would be subjected to BOR 2 risk if he returned to India. [21]

11.  The applicant is unable to show that he has any reasonable prospect of success in his intended appeal.

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