|
HCAL 1753/2018
[2021] HKCFI 222
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
NO 1753 OF 2018
_____________________
| Re: |
Raja Ibrar Hussain |
Applicant |
_____________________
| Before: |
Deputy High Court Judge P. LI in Chambers |
| Date of Hearing: |
8 December 2020 |
| Date of Decision: |
2 February 2021 |
________________
D E C I S I O N
________________
1. The applicant is a Pakistan national. He came to Hong Kong on 21/3/2008 illegally through China. He was arrested by the police on 14/1/2009. He filed a torture claim on 16/1/2009 the appeal of which was rejected by the TCAB on 9/5/2014.
2. Meanwhile, he lodged the non‑refoulement claim on 22/11/2013 which is the subject matter of this case. The Director rejected his claim on 7/1/2016 [1]. The TCAB refused his appeal on 17/2/2017.
3. In March 2017, the Director invited the applicant to file further evidence in relation to BOR 2. He did not respond. On 13/4/2017, the Director further rejected the claim based on BOR 2. The TCAB refused his appeal on 17/8/2018.[2]
4. On 27/8/2018, the applicant applied for leave for judicial review of the decision of the TCAB. He disagreed with the decision of the TCAB. He did not point out any error in the decision.
5. Deputy Judge Lung found that the TCAB had considered the merits of the appeal against the further decision of the Director. The applicant failed to show that there was any reasonable prospect of success. Leave was refused on 10/6/2020.
6. The applicant filed a summons on 5/10/2020 for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy Judge Lung [3]. He was more than three months out of time.
7. In his affirmation in support of the application for extension of time, the applicant indicated that his life was in danger in Pakistan. He requested this court to grant him leave so that he could apply for legal aid. He asked for a hearing.
8. A hearing was scheduled on 8/12/2020. The applicant did not turn up. The notice of hearing was sent to his updated address by registered post and ordinary post. He did not claim the notice by registered mail. However, there was no return of the notice by ordinary mail. This court thus considered his leave application on paper.
9. In considering whether to extend time for appeal against the refusal of leave to apply for judicial review, this court will take into account: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted.[4]
10. The applicant is out of time for more than 3 months. There is no explanation whatsoever. I have carefully considered the reasons given by Deputy Judge Lung. I agree with his judgment. The applicant fails to point out any error in the judgment.
11. In the circumstances, I dismiss his application.
| |
(P. Li) |
| |
Deputy High Court Judge |
The applicant, acting in person, was absent.
[1] On claims based on BOR 3 and persecution risk.
[2] The applicant filed his notice of appeal to the TCAB on 20/10/2017. Late filing was refused as the applicant was late for five and a half months. In any event, the adjudicator rejected the appeal as there was no evidence of any risk based on BOR 2 ground.
[3] Deputy Judge Lung has ceased sitting as deputy judge.
[4] Jagg Singh [2020] HKCA 844, §10.
|