RE ABDUL SHAKOOR

HCAL 484/2019

[2021] HKCFI 2625

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 484 OF 2019

___________________

___________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

1.  The applicant is from Pakistan. He sneaked into Hong Kong on 1/5/2009 through China. He was arrested by the police on 11/5/2009. He filed a torture claim on 13/5/2009. It was rejected by the Director on 22/10/2013. Later, he filed the non-refoulement claim in this case.[1]

2.  The Director rejected his claim on 31/5/2018 [2]. The TCAB refused his appeal on 4/1/2019. 

3.  On 20/2/2019, the applicant applied for leave for judicial review of the decision of the TCAB.  In his affirmation, he did not specify any error in the TCAB decision.  He only disagreed with the adjudicator.

4.  Deputy Judge C. P. Pang dealt with the leave application on paper.  He found that the fear arose from a private land dispute between the applicant and his eldest brother.  There was no ill-treatment amounting to ‘a minimum level of severity’.  There was no valid reason for his eldest brother to kill him.  There were reasonable relocation options.  The TCAB decision was reasonable.[3]  The Judge refused leave on 28/1/2021.

5.  The applicant filed a summons on 21/5/2021 for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy Judge Pang.  He was nearly 3½ months out of time for appeal.

6.  In his affirmation in support of the application for extension of time, the applicant alleged that he had not received the decision from Deputy Judge Pang. There was no further detail.

7.  In considering whether to extend time for appeal against the refusal of leave, 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]

8.  The applicant is out of time for nearly 3½ months.  It is substantial delay.  He did not explain how he obtained the decision if not from the mail.  He did not explain the further delay after he obtained the decision.

9.  According to the court record, the decision of Deputy Judge Pang was sent to the last known address on 28/1/2021.  This address was the same as the one on the summons dated 21/5/2021.  There was no return of mail.  I have grave doubt as to his reason for the delay.

10.  As to the basis of his claim, the adjudicator had carefully considered the evidence.[5]  In gist, the adjudicator concluded that it was a domestic dispute on land.  The applicant was assaulted but did not sustain serious injuries.  His eldest brother had no intention to kill.  His eldest brother did not try to locate him.  There was no real risk of harm.  Deputy Judge Pang agreed with the conclusion.

11.  I have carefully considered the reasons given by Deputy Judge Pang.  I agree with his judgment.  I also agree with the conclusion of the TCAB.

12.  There was no merit in the intended judicial review.  The delay was significant with no explanation.  In the circumstances, I refuse his application for extension of time to appeal.