RE AHMAD ERSHAD alias MOHAMMAD IRSHAD
HTML content
HCAL 646/2020
[2021] HKCFI 2251
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
NO 646 OF 2020
_____________________
| Re: | AHMAD ERSHAD alias MOHAMMAD IRSHAD | Applicant |
_____________________
Before: Deputy High Court Judge P. Li in Chambers
Date of Decision: 11 August 2021
________________________
D E C I S I O N
________________________
1. The applicant is from India. He came to Hong Kong on 29/7/2009 as a visitor. He overstayed until he was arrested on 2/9/2009. He lodged a torture claim on 4/9/2009. The torture claim was rejected by the Director on 23/10/2013. He then raised a CIDTP claim on 29/11/2013. He withdrew the CIDTP claim subsequently and was repatriated to India on 9/2/2014.
2. He came to Hong Kong again on 20/11/2016. He overstayed until he was arrested by the police on 15/12/2016. He lodged the
non-refoulement claim in this case on 15/2/2017. His claim was rejected by the Director on 26/6/2018. His appeal was dismissed by the TCAB on 19/10/2018.3. He filed a leave application for judicial review of the decisions of the Director and the TCAB on 29/10/2018. This was the case HCAL 2393/2018. Deputy Judge Lung refused leave for judicial review on 20/1/2020.
4. On 15/4/2020, he filed another leave application for judicial review of the decision of Deputy Judge Lung. This was the case HCAL 646/2020.
5. This court fixed a hearing on 10/12/2020. I explained to the applicant that he had adopted the wrong procedure. I told the applicant to issue a summons to apply for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy Judge Lung in relation to HCAL 2393/2018. As it was out of time, he should explain the reasons for the delay in the summons. His leave application in relation to HCAL 646/2020 was therefore refused on 13/1/2021.
6. The applicant filed a summons on 2/3/2021 for extension of time to appeal against the decision of this court in HCAL 646/2020. He was out of time for about 4 weeks.
7. In his affirmation in support of the application for extension of time, the applicant repeated the monetary dispute with his friend (Aslam) in India. His goods were seized by the Customs in India in 2016. He indicated that his life was in danger as he could not repay his friend.
8. In considering whether to extend time for appeal against the refusal of leave to apply for judicial review, this court will take into account: (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted.[1]
9. The applicant was out of time for about 4 weeks. It was substantial. There was no explanation about the delay.
10. The important issue at this stage is the merits of the intended judicial review [2]. I proceed to consider the merits of the intended judicial review.
11. As mentioned above, the applicant adopted the wrong procedure in relation to the decision of Deputy Judge Lung dated 20/1/2020 (HCAL 2393/2018). He should apply for extension of time to appeal that decision (HCAL 2393/2018) as it is substantially out of time. This had already been made clear to the applicant by this court during the hearing on 10/12/2020 and in the subsequent Form CALL-1 dated 13/1/2021.
12. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the intended judicial review. I dismiss his application for extension of time to appeal in relation to HCAL 646/2020.
| (P. Li) Deputy High Court Judge |
The applicant was unrepresented.