RE SUKHJINDER SINGH

HCAL 2691/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1923

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO  2691 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 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 Order dated 10 March 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 17 June 2021 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision and for leave to advance new ground of appeal.

5.  In his affirmation in support of his application, he said that he considered the Court’s decision unfair and unreasonable without allowing him a chance to clarify his situation in his country and that he was not aware of the time for the appeal.

Discussion

6.  Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reason, I decide to determine this application without an oral hearing.

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.  By the Board’s Decision, the Board rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decisions for the reasons below; the references are those in the Board’s Decision.

(1)  The applicant had failed to give coherent account of his case and there was no reasonable likelihood that he might be subjected to torture if he returned to India [32].

(2)  For the same reason, the Board rejected his claim on Torture risk [32]; BOR 3 risk [37] and Persecution risk 43].

9.  The applicant has not been able to say in what respect had the Board erred in its Decision.  His reasons above do not assist his application as he is still unable to say what clarification he would make in relation to the situation of his country.

10.  He is unable to show that he has any reasonable prospect of success in his intended appeal.

11.  In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for his appeal.  I also refuse leave for him to advance new ground of appeal.  Accordingly, I dismiss his application.