ABID AKRAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
HTML content
HCAL 238/2019
[2023] HKCFI 2250
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
NO 238 OF 2019
_____________
BETWEEN
| Abid Akram | Applicant | |
| and | ||
| Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office | Putative Respondent | |
| and | ||
| Director of Immigration | Putative Interested Party |
_____________
| Before: | Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung in Chambers |
| Date of Decision: | 12 September 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”).
2. Having considered his evidence, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), dismissed his appeal. He applied to the Court for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
3. This Court, by Form CALL-1 dated 21 March 2022 (“the Court’s decision”) refused his application.
4. The applicant filed a summons and an affirmation on 1 August 2023 applying for extension of time for filing the notice of appeal.
5. In his affirmation, he said that he cannot go back to his country as his life will be in danger and he is not satisfied with the Board’s Decision.
Discussion
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. The deadline for his appeal is 5 April 2022. The applicant is late for more than one year and three months. The delay is serious. I shall, nevertheless, consider the merits of his application.
9. 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].”
10. The applicant’s claim is that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by Malik Mohammad Yousuf (“Malik”).
11. The Director of Immigration refused his application for the reason that his claim was not substantiated. He appealed to the Board.
12. He refused to give evidence before the Board despite the Board having explained to him that there were insufficient details and inconsistencies in his evidence before the Director. He was also warned of the consequence of not giving evidence. He refused to give evidence or to cooperate with the Board. The Board therefore proceeded to consider his evidence and attached no weight to his evidence. It also found that he was not a witness of truth. It dismissed his appeal.
13. The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Court’s decision.
14. I find that the applicant has not been able to show that there is any realistic prospect of success in his intended appeal.
15. 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.