RE SANDAL LAKHWINDER SINGH

HCAL 1267/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1377

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1267 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”).  By Notice of Decision dated 19 February 2016 (“the Director’s Decision”), 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 dated 26 June 2018 (“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.  By Order dated 12 March 2021 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court refused to grant him leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision for the reason that there was no reasonable prospect of success in his intended judicial review.

3.  The applicant intends to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Court’s decision.  However, he is out of time under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the RHC.  He filed a summons dated 15 April 2021 for extension of time for his appeal.

4.  In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant said that he wanted to challenge the Court’s decision, but he was out of time because he had moved to other room.  He is not conversant with the judicial review procedures.  He was only told by the immigration officer when he reported to the office every two months.

Discussion

5.  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.

6.  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].”

7.  The Court had in its decision, set out the reasons why it refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.  See paragraph 9 of the Court’s decision.

8.  In his affirmation in support of his application, he only annexed the Board’s Decision without specifying specific ground in support of his application.  This does not assist his application.  He has not been able to identify any error on the Court’s decision.

9.  The Court had considered the Board’s Decision and found that it was without fault.

10.  He has no valid reason in support of his application.

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.