RE GURPINDER SINGH

HCAL 3555/2019

[2022] HKCFI 751

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 3555 OF 2019

_____________

_____________

_____________

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, by his Decision, 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 affirmation dated 3 August 2021, the applicant applied to the Court that he wanted to withdraw his application for judicial review for the reason he wanted to go back to his own country as it is safe for him to do so.

4.  By Form CALL-1 dated 26 August 2021 (the “Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that there is no practical purpose to grant a remedy because the relevant detriment to the applicant has been removed.

5.  The applicant filed a summons on 18 February 2022 for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time.

6.  In his affirmation in support of his application, he said that he had withdrawn his application because he had relied upon what his family had told him that his enemies were no longer harassing them. He then came to know that his family had lied to him. In fact, his enemies were still looking for him and they harassed his family more intensely. He therefore asked the Court to extend time for him to appeal so as to re-open his application. He also asks for an oral hearing.

Discussion

7.  Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reasons, I decide to determine this application without an oral hearing.

8.  The Court dismissed his application upon his application to withdraw his application. The purpose of the court dismissing his application is clear. It prevents the applicant from making further applications to the Court for the purpose of delaying his departure from Hong Kong since he has failed his application for non-refoulement by the Director and the Board.

9.  Once the application has been dismissed, the Court has no further function in his application. There is no power under Rule 53 of the Rules of the High Court or any other statutory provisions for re-opening his application.

10.  There is no realistic prospect of success in his intended appeal. I therefore refuse to extend time for him to appeal and dismiss his application.