RE KHAN ABDUR RASHID ALIAS MONIR KHAN

HCAL 630/2020

[2022] HKCFI 459

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 630 OF 2020

_____________________

_____________________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.  The applicant is from Bangladesh. He came to Hong Kong on 24/5/2015. He overstayed and surrendered to the Immigration Department on 8/6/2015. He lodged the non-refoulement claim in this case on 6/8/2015.

2.  In January 2002, the applicant was kidnapped by some “AL” members[1] and assaulted during the detention for about 10 days. They asked him to stop working for the “BNP” [2]. He managed to escape one night while going to toilet. He walked for one and a half hours, took a ferry, then a bus to Dhaka. He had bruises over his body. He took painkillers and recovered in 10 days. He was targeted as he worked for the “BNP”.

3.  About a month later, he was kidnapped and detained for 2 days again by the same group. He was rescued by the police who brought him to a judge. The judge gave him a hotline number to summon help when in danger. He treated the cuts and bruises by himself. He recovered in about 10 days.

4.  He had been to Hong Kong for about 10 times in 2006 on business. At that time, he did not seek protection as the “BNP” was in power. He had a normal life in Bangladesh. Since January 2009, the “AL” were in power. he was harassed by them. He initially wanted to explore business opportunities in Malaysia but eventually changed his mind. He left Bangladesh in May 2015 to Hong Kong.

5.  The Director rejected her non-refoulement claim on 7/11/2018. His appeal to the TCAB was dismissed on 3/4/2020.

6.  The adjudicator pointed out that the applicant was unreliable and evasive. She rejected the factual basis of his claim. She concluded that the incidents of kidnap were fabricated. Since the applicant had been a member of the “BNP” for over 20 years, the “AL” members had a lot of chances to threaten him to quit. The single incident in 2002 was unconvincing. It was unreasonable that the applicant could have escaped so easily while going to toilet during the 1^st kidnap. The applicant was inconsistent as to whether the kidnappers had weapons. It was unreasonable that he did not seek help from the “BNP”. It was also unreasonable that the judge gave him a hotline number in case he needed help. In 2015, he could have left for Malaysia but changed his mind as there was no business opportunity. This indicated that his life was not in imminent danger.

7.  On 14/4/2020, the applicant applied for leave for judicial review of the decision of the TCAB. He complained that the adjudicator was unfair and failed to consider all the issues.

8.  He initially withdrew his claim on 13/4/2021 asserting that his problem had been resolved. He subsequently filed an application to re-instate his leave application on 7/5/2021.

9.  This court held a hearing on 26/7/2021. The applicant’s explanation for re-instatement was not convincing. This court granted him leave to re-instate nevertheless.

10.  The applicant was untruthful. His evidence was contradictory. The adjudicator was justified to reject his evidence. I agree with the findings of the adjudicator. There was no error of law or procedure. The decision of the TCAB was reasonable. Leave was refused on 8/9/2021.

11.  The applicant filed a summons on 25/10/2021 for extension of time to appeal against the decision of this court. He was out of time for more than a month. In his affirmation, he asserted that he did not receive the decision in time.

12.  According to the court record, the decision was sent to his last known address on 8/9/2021. It was the same address as in the summons for extension of time to appeal. He had not explained the circumstances for receiving the decision late. I find his explanation for the delay unconvincing.

13.  In considering whether to extend time for appeal, this court will take into account: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the merits of the intended judicial review; (4) prejudice to the respondent.[3]

14.  As set out above, I agree with the adjudicator. The applicant is untruthful. There is no merit in the intended judicial review.

15.  Having considered all factors, I refuse the application for extension of time to appeal.