AWAIS IBRAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 136/2020

[2023] HKCFI 333

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 136 OF 2020

_____________

BETWEEN
	Awais Ibrar	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:

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 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.  The applicant filed an affirmation on 20 September 2022, in which he said he would like to withdraw his case because his problems had been sorted out and he is able to return to his family.

4.  By Order dated 8 November 2022 (“the Court’s decision”), the Court dismissed his application upon his application for withdrawal.

5.  The applicant filed a summons on 26 January 2023 applying for extension of time to appeal against the Court’s decision. In his affirmation in support of his application, he did not explain his delay. He said that he did not agree with the Court’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. The deadline for his appeal is 22 November 2022. The applicant is late for about 2 months. I shall consider the merits of his case.

8.  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].”

9.  The Court’s decision was made upon the decision of the Court of Appeal in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi[2022] HKCA 471 at §19:

“(1) The applicant on his own motion applied to the Court to withdraw his application for leave to apply for judicial review. The Judge acceded to his application, whereupon there was nothing outstanding in the action. The Judge was correct to conclude the action by ordering a dismissal of the application instead of leaving the action at large.”

10.  The applicant has raised no valid reason to show that he has a realistic prospect of success in his intended appeal.

11.  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.