RE HUMAUN MD

HCAL 2572/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1763

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2572 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 28 May 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 15 June 2020 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision.  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 applied for leave to appeal out of time without specifying any reason for his delay or grounds in support of his application.

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.  By the Board’s Decision, the Board rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.  The Board considered the applicant’s evidence and it rejected his appeal for the reasons below; the references in the brackets are those in the Board’s Decision:

“78. In conclusion, the Appellant has failed prove the underlying premises to support his case of threat on his life by AL. In particular, his evidence of joining BNP is utterly incapable of believe [belief]. It is inconsistent with his other evidence and with the then political environment. He was not telling the truth…..

…

82. … … the Appellant has utterly failed to prove that he was subject to any threat by AL to kill him in revenge for his leaving AL to join BNP. He has failed to prove that he would face a genuine and substantial risk of being subjected to ill-treatment should he be returned to Bangladesh.

…

116. … …I find, on balance, it is neither unreasonable nor harsh for him to return to Bangladesh.  I do not think he has any real problem in relocation.”

9.  The Court had considered the applicant’s grounds for his application.  The applicant had also appeared before the Court.  Upon enquiry by the Court, the applicant confirmed that he had no complaint against the immigration officer or the Board.  Also, he had no comments on the Board’s findings.  It is obvious that the Board rejected all the significant facts in support of his claim.  As such, he has no factual basis for his application.

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

11.  In the circumstances, I find that the applicant is unable to show that he has any reasonable prospect of success in his intended appeal against the Court’s decision.  I refuse to extend time for his appeal.  Accordingly, I dismiss his application.