RE IQBAL, MUHAMMAD ASIF

HCAL 1574/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1910

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1574 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 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 Order dated 4 June 2020 (“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 25 August 2020 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision.  The file was misplaced and the application has not been dealt with within the usual time.

5.  In his affirmation in support of his application, he said that he received the court’s letter late and he did not understand English nor the judicial system in Hong Kong.

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.  The Board considered the applicant’s evidence.  It set out its reasons in its Decision from paragraph 33 to paragraph 45.  It came to the conclusion:

“6. ... …While the Board accepts the Appellant’s livestock may have grazed upon his neighbour’s property, causing them some consternation at the time, it does not accept that they would seek to harm the Appellant now, some 11 years later. Nor, the reasons outlined below, does the Board accept the Appellant’s claims in relation to running over a child’s leg as credible.

…

46.  The Board has considered the Appellant’s claims both individually and cumulatively, but in light of the findings above, the Board does not consider that he would face a real risk of suffering proscribed harm should he return to Pakistan in the reasonably foreseeable future.  Based on the evidence as a whole, the Board finds for the reasons that follow that the Appellant’s case for non-refoulement has not been made out.”

References are those in the Board’s Decision.

9.  The applicant has not been able to say in what respect had the Board erred in its Decision.

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.  Accordingly, I dismiss his application.