RE RAMZAN MUHAMMAD

HCAL 236/2019

[2022] HKCFI 2291

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 236 OF 2019

_____________

_____________

_____________

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, by his Decision, 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 Form CALL-1 dated 2 June 2022 (the “Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that there is no realistic prospect of success in his intended judicial review.

4.  The applicant filed a summons on 19 July 2022 for appeal against the Court’s decision out of time. In his affirmation in support of his application, he said he did not receive the Court’s decision. According to the court’s record, the Court’s decision was sent to his last known address on 2 June 2022.

Discussion

5.  Pursuant to Order 32, rule 11 and 11A of the RHC, having considered the applicant’s reasons, 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.  I shall therefore consider the merits of his case. The applicant claimed that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by Iqbal due to a land dispute.

8.  By way of the Director’s Decision, the Director refused the applicant’s claim for the reason that his claim was not substantiated. The applicant appealed to the Board.

9.  The Board enquired the material aspects of the applicant’s claim [26]-[34]. The Board observed that the applicant’s evidence was inconsistent. It also rejected the applicant’s evidence on pledging his property to his friend Shah for the repayment of a loan [40]. It found that the applicant’s claimed fear was vague and unpersuasive [41]. Further, the Board found the applicant’s claim that Iqbal was angry with his mortgage of the property to Shah lacked credibility [43]. It noted that, on the applicant’s own evidence, he left Pakistan because Iqbal did not wish to live under the same roof with him. Nevertheless, the Board opined that there was no indication that Shah or Iqbal would take steps to pursue and harm the applicant and, in any event, the applicant was capable of relocating to other areas [44]-[46]. For these reasons, the Board rejected the applicant’s claim on all applicable grounds and dismissed his appeal. the references refer to the Board’s Decision.

10.  The references refer to the Board’s Decision.

11.  It is clear that the Board dismissed his appeal as it did not accept the the applicant’s facts in support of his claim. In the applicant’s affirmation in support of his application for extension of time to appeal, he had not set out any reasons to show that he has any reasonable prospect of success in his intended appeal.

12.  In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for the applicant to file his notice of appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.