RE RAI SANJAY

HCAL 1220/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1895

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1220 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 3 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 2 July 2020 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision and for leave to advance a new ground of appeal.  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 the Court’s decision was unfair and that he was not aware of the time limit for his appeal.  He was being detained by the Immigration Department.

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 and, for the reasons set out in the Board’s Decision, found that the applicant failed to show that he had a well-founded fear of any risks as claimed on the facts found below; the references are those in the Board’s Decision.

(1) There was no evidence that Narayan’s father is still alive or he is still interested in him, the event took place some 16 years ago.

(2) The political party to which Narayan’s father belonged had dissolved.

(3) There was no evidence to show that the government was involved at all.  See paragraph 44 of the Board’s Decision.

(4) State protection was available to the applicant [31].

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

10.  His grounds in support of this application are not valid grounds to show that he has any reasonable chance of success in his intended appeal.

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