|
HCAL 2235/2019
[2025] HKCFI 961
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
NO. 2235 OF 2019
_____________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Dimaculangan John Abobo |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board /
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Putative
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
Director of Immigration |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
_____________
| Before: |
Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers |
| Date of Decision: |
27 March 2025 |
_________________
D E C I S I O N
_________________
THE APPLICATION
1. The applicant is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission 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 Decision.
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 Judgment (“the Judgment”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that there is no realistic prospect of success in his intended application.
4. The Judgment was sent to the applicant on 21 January 2025 at his last known address, without being returned from the Post Office. He is deemed to receive the Court’s decision[1].
5. Time for filing the notice of appeal expired on 4 February 2025.
6. By summons filed on 25 February 2025, the applicant applied for appeal against the Judgment out of time. He is late for 21 days.
7. In his affirmation support of his application, the applicant said that he did not receive the Judgment.
Discussion
8. Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A and Order 53, rule 3(3) of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reason, I decide to determine this application on paper without an oral hearing[2].
9. The Court shall consider the factors as set out in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam [2016] 2 HKC 393 at para. 27(3) in considering if extension of time should be extended: (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. I shall consider the merits of his case.
10. 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].”
11. The applicant claimed that if refouled, he will be harmed or killed by unknown drug users and pushers.
12. The Director rejected his claim because it was not substantiated. He appealed to the Board.
13. Having considered the evidence, the Board dismissed his appeal for the reason that his evidence was incredible and unaccepted.
14. Those reasons under paragraph 7 are not valid for his delay.
15. There is no valid reason from the applicant to challenge the Court’s decision.
16. In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for his appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.
| |
(K.W. Lung)
Deputy High Court Judge
|
The applicant was unrepresented.
[1] Re: Ravinder Singh [2023] HKCA 604, Hon Poon CJHC and Cheung JA, 28 April 2023
“17. … According to the Court’s record, the Court’s decision was sent to the applicant’s last known address on 31 March 2022 by ordinary post. He was deemed to receive the same on the next following day, not being a specified day such as a Saturday or a general holiday. …”
[2] Ogbozor Tochukwu Eugene v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Director of Immigration [2022] HKCA 607, Hon Kwan VP and G Lam JA, 6 May 2022:
“16. … … In respect of his complaint of no oral hearing, the judge is entitled to decide the matter on paper pursuant to the Order 32, rules 11 and 11A and Order 53 rule 3(3) of the Rules of the High Court.”
|