|
HCAL 1754/2018
[2021] HKCFI 2687
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
NO 1754 OF 2018
_____________________
| RE: |
ALAM JAHANGIR |
Applicant |
_____________________
Before: Deputy High Court Judge P. Li in Chambers
Date of Decision: 15 September 2021
____________________
D E C I S I O N
____________________
1. The applicant is from Bangladesh. He was arrested on 14/5/2014 for entering Hong Kong illegally. He lodged a non-refoulement claim on 17/5/2014.
2. The basis of his claim was that he might be harmed or killed by “Kalam” if he returned to Bangladesh. “Kalam” was a member of the Awami League (“AL”). He was a member of the opposition party—Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“BNP”).
3. The Director rejected his non-refoulement claim on 18/8/2016 [1] and 11/8/2017 [2]. The applicant appealed to the TCAB. The appeal was dismissed on 27/2/2018.
4. On 27/8/2018, the applicant applied for leave for judicial review of the decision of the TCAB. He was about 3 months out of time.
5. Deputy Judge Lung fixed a hearing on 19/12/2019. The notice of hearing was sent to his last known address. He was absent from the hearing.
6. Deputy Judge Lung considered his leave application on paper. The applicant was out of time for 3 months in his leave application.[3] He gave no explanation for the delay. In his affirmation, he stressed that he disagree with the TCAB. Deputy Judge Lung found that there was no merit in the intended judicial review. He found no good reason to extend the time for the leave application. He refused leave on 21/5/2020.
7. The applicant filed a summons on 7/10/2020 for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy Judge Lung. He was out of time for slightly over 4 months.
8. In his affirmation in support of the application for extension of time, the applicant indicated that he disagreed with the TCAB decision.
9. 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.[4]
10. The delay was substantial. The applicant did not explain.
11. As to the basis of his claim, the applicant asserted that on several occasions in 2009, “Kalam” and his group took some goods from his shop without paying. They also demanded extortion money. They harassed his family and assaulted him. They vandalized his shop. He was in fear and left Bangladesh via China to Hong Kong.
12. The adjudicator found that the applicant was not a credible witness. He knew very little about the policies and leaders of the BNP. He was vague about his own involvement. He claimed that “Kalam” was the assistant of a member of the Parliament representing the “AL”. However, there was no such member in the relevant website. The adjudicator concluded that the applicant fabricated the factual basis of his claim.[5] I agree with the decision of the TCAB. The applicant was not credible. There was no real risk of harm.
13. I also agree with the decision of Deputy Judge Lung. There was no prospect of success in the intended judicial review.
14. In my judgment, there is no merit in the intended judicial review. Having considered all factors, I refuse the application for extension of time to appeal.
| |
(P. Li) |
| |
Deputy High Court Judge |
The applicant was unrepresented.
[1] On BOR 3, torture risk and persecution risk.
[2] On BOR 2.
[3] In the Form call-1, Deputy Judge Lung pointed out there was a 5-month-delay. It should be 3 months instead. However, I do not think it is material. It has no bearing on the decision to refuse extension of time.
[4] Jagg Singh [2020] HKCA 844, §10—12.
[5] Decision of the TCAB dated 27/2/2018, §§44—57.
|