RE PHAM VAN QUANG

HCAL 2336/2018

[2022] HKCFI 2889

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2336 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

The application

1.  The applicant is an illegal immigrant for staying in Hong Kong without permission 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 Decision (the “Board’s Decision”), 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 Decision.

3.  By Form CALL-1 dated 2 March 2021 (the “Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that there is no realistic prospect of success in his intended judicial review.

4.  The applicant filed a summons on 5 August 2022 for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time. In his affirmation in support of his application, he said he did not understand English or Chinese and he did not know how to appeal. He had to get someone who understands English and Chinese to assist him.

Discussion

5.  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.

6.  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. Nevertheless, I shall consider the merits of the case.

7.  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].”

8.  The applicant claimed that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by the creditor and the Vietnam government because he was unable to repay his debt. He was attacked by the creditor. He reported to police. The police did not assist him as the creditor produce the debt note. He was upset and at the spur of the moment, he scolded the police officer and pull down the national flag and poster from the notice board before he fled.

9.  By way of the Director’s Decisions, the Director refused the applicant’s claim for the reason that his claim was not substantiated. The applicant appealed to the Board.

10.  Having considered the evidence, the Board found that the applicant’s creditor had no intention of harming or killing him. He did not suffered serious injury from the attack by his creditor. He only received a warrant from police, telling him to attend court to explain why he scolded the police officer and torn down the national flag. There is no evidence to show that he will not have a fair trial in Vietnam. The offence, even if convicted, is only punishable by labour camp detention or a term of imprisonment from 6 months to 3 years. See paragraph 64 of the Board’s Decision.

11.  It is clear that the Board dismissed his appeal with the reasons above. In the applicant’s affirmation in support of his application for extension of time to appeal, he had not set out any reason to show that he has any reasonable prospect of success in his intended appeal.

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