AHMED ZEESHAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
HTML content
HCAL 437/2019
[2023] HKCFI 1880
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
NO 437 OF 2019
_____________
BETWEEN
| Ahmed Zeeshan | 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: | 1 August 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 4 April 2023 (“the Court’s decision”) refused his application.
4. The applicant filed a summons and an affirmation on 5 July 2023, applying for extension of time for filing the notice of appeal.
5. In his affirmation, he said that the Court’s decision is unfair as the court did not give him an opportunity to clarify his case and situation in his country. He also said that he is not aware of the time limit for his appeal as he is not legally represented.
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 19 April 2023. The applicant is late for more than 2 months. I shall 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 (i) members of the Madrassa, and (ii) the local police, the court and the Shia community.
11. The Director of Immigration refused his application for the reason that his claim was not substantiated. He appealed to the Board.
12. Having considered his evidence, the Board found that his evidence was incredible and 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.