RE WALEED MUHAMMAD

HCAL 1577/2019

[2022] HKCFI 122

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1577 OF 2019

_____________________

_____________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

1.  The applicant is from Pakistan. He came to Hong Kong on 23/12/2011 illegally. He was arrested on 7/2/2012. He lodged the non-refoulement claim in this case on 9/2/2012.

2.  The basis of his claim was that he would be harmed or killed if returned to Pakistan because he refused to join the PPP.[1] In November 2011, some PPP people assaulted him at his home. They were armed with knives and pistols. He managed to escape to a friend’s place. He was injured all over his body. He had treatment including stitches and some medicine at a place. He refused to tell the Director the name of the place. He recovered in about a month. He did not report to the police. He decided to come to Hong Kong after learning about the protection scheme from another friend. He did not contact his family who were not attacked by the PPP people.

3.  His non-refoulement claim was rejected on 21/9/2015 and 16/1/2017 by the Director. The appeal was dismissed by the TCAB on 25/4/2018.

4.  The adjudicator found that the applicant was not reliable. His evidence in the NCF was inconsistent with that in the screening interview.[2] In addition, during the attack in November 2011, the PPP people did not use their weapons. They had no intention to kill him. After the applicant escaped to a friend, the PPP people did not assault his family. They did not track him down. Six years had passed, there was no reason that the PPP continued to target him. He was not the only one campaigning for PML(N).[3] There was no public official involved. There was reasonable State protection.

5.  On 10/6/2019, the applicant filed the leave application for judicial review of the decision of the TCAB. He was 10½ months out of time.

6.  Meanwhile, he applied to withdraw the leave application on 22/1/2021. He stated in his supporting affirmation that his problem had been solved. He wanted to return to Pakistan. This court granted him leave for withdrawal on 5/2/2021. On 13/7/2021, he applied to this court for re-instatement of the leave application. He stated that he did not want to go back as his life was still in danger. This court allowed the applicant to re-instate his leave application.

7.  In considering whether there is good reason for the extension of time, I would consider the length of the delay, the reason for the delay and the merits of the leave application.[4]

8.   The applicant did not apply for extension of time. He did not explain the reasons for the delay.The adjudicator had analyzed the evidence. The applicant was inconsistent with no satisfactory explanation. I agree with the conclusion of the adjudicator. The applicant was not truthful.

9.   The intended judicial review is not reasonably arguable. There is no reasonable prospect of success. There is no good reason to extend the time for the leave application. This court refused leave for the intended judicial review.

10.  The applicant filed a summons on 25/11/2021 for extension of time to appeal against the decision of this court. He was out of time for about 6 weeks.

11.  In his affirmation, the applicant indicated that he was in custody and did not receive the decision of this court. He forgot about the case number. He was only informed by a friend about the result. He needed more time to prepare the appeal.

12.  In considering whether to extend time for appeal, this court will take into account: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the merits of the intended judicial review; (4) prejudice to the respondent.[5]

13.  According to the court record, the decision was sent to CIC on 29/9/2021. Even in custody, he should have been informed of the decision. This fact alone cannot explain the delay of about 6 weeks. This court also considered the prospect of the intended judicial review which is an important factor at this stage.

14.  As set out in paragraph 4 above, the adjudicator rejected the evidence as there were important inconsistencies. I agree with the decision of the TCAB. In my judgment, there is no merit in the intended judicial review.

15.  Having considered all relevant factors, I refuse the application for extension of time to appeal.