|
HCAL 2356/2018
[2023] HKCFI 301
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
NO 2356 OF 2018
_____________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Rahman Rizaul |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board / |
Putative |
| |
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
Director of Immigration |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
_____________
| Before: |
Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers |
| Date of Decision: |
16 February 2023 |
_____________
D E C I S I O N
_____________
The application
1. The applicant is an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission and he lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”). 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 (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decisions.
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 Order dated 25 October 2022 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application for the reason that there was no realistic prospect of success in his intended application.
4. The applicant filed a summons on 19 January 2023 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision. In his affirmation in support of his application, he said that he received the Court’s decision late. His life is still in danger if he returns to his country.
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. The Court shall consider the factors as set out in AW v. Director of Immigration and William Lam [2016] 2 HKC 393 at para. 27(3) in considering if extension of time should be extended: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted. The deadline for his appeal is 8 November 2022. The applicant is late for about 2 months. I shall consider the merits of his case.
7. 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].”
8. The applicant claimed that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by his moneylender Lala Bishwajit Roy (“Roy”).
9. The Director refused his application because his claim was unsubstantiated. He appealed to the Board.
10. Having considered all the evidence, the Board did not accept the applicant’s evidence on the facts of his case. Further, the Board considered his alleged ill-treatment did not attain the minimum level of severity and the harm was only localized.
11. The applicant has raised no valid reason to show that he has a realistic prospect of success in his intended appeal.
12. In the circumstances, I refuse to extend time for his appeal. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.
| |
(K. W. Lung)
Deputy High Court Judge
|
The applicant was unrepresented.
|