RE EHSAN UL HAQ ALIAS HAQ UL EHSAN

HCAL 2921/2018

[2021] HKCFI 2622

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2921 OF 2018

___________________

___________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

1.  The applicant left Pakistan in April 2009 on a business visa to China. He stayed there for 6 months before sneaking into Hong Kong on 9/10/2009 from Shenzhen. He was arrested by the police on the same day. He filed the non-refoulement claim in this case on 12/10/2009 [1].

2.  The Director rejected his claim on 3/7/2015 [2] and 24/2/2017 [3].  The TCAB refused his appeal on 9/11/2016 [4] and 22/11/2018 [5].

3.  On 19/12/2018, the applicant applied for leave for judicial review of the decisions of the TCAB.  He did not specify any complaint or error in the TCAB decisions.  

4.  This court accepted the findings of the TCAB.  The material facts alleged by the applicant were vague.  They could not support his claim.  The adjudicator did not accept the applicant’s story.  He dismissed the claim on credibility.  There was no real risk of harm.  This court concluded that there was no error of law or procedures.  The decisions of the TCAB were rational.  Leave for judicial review was refused on 12/11/2020. [6]

5.  The applicant filed a summons on 27/5/2021 for extension of time to appeal against the decision of this court.  He was 6 months out of time for appeal.

6.  In his affirmation in support of the application for extension of time, the applicant stated that he did not receive the decision from this court.  He did not explain further.

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

8.  The applicant is out of time for 6 months.  It is a substantial delay.  He had not explained.  

9.  I notice that the decision of this court was sent on 12/11/2020 to an address at To Kwa Wan.  This address is the same address in the Form 86 and his NCF.  There is no return of mail.

10.  However, in the summons for extension of time dated 27/5/2021, the applicant supplied a new address at Tsuen Wan.  The applicant had not updated his address with this court.  There was no information when he moved to the new address.  He did not mention the change in the summons.  I do not accept it as the cause of the delay. 

11.  The applicant attended a hearing on 25 April 2016 before the TCAB.  He elected not to give evidence.  The adjudicator rejected his evidence.  The adjudicator held that the applicant was not credible.  His evidence in support of the claim was vague.  There was no real risk of harm if he returned to Pakistan.

12.  I agree with the decisions of the TCAB.  I am of the view that there was no merit in the intended judicial review.  There was no explanation about the delay in processing the appeal.  In the circumstances, I refuse his application for extension of time to appeal.