ABID AKRAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE
Extension of time refused because the applicant's delay (over 15 months) was serious and there was no realistic prospect of success: the Board found the claim unsubstantiated and the applicant refused to give evidence, leading the Board to reject his credibility; on that basis the court exercised its discretion and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] HKCFI 2250
- Parties
- Applicant: Abid Akram; Putative Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 12 September 2023
- Case Number
- HCAL238/2019
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal Against Board Decision; Prior Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Refused / Decision on Summons for Extension of Time (application Determined on Papers)
- Outcome
- Extension of time refused; application dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeal, Credibility Findings, Refusal to Give Evidence, Non Refoulement Claim, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Abid Akram
Applicant
Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal Against Board Decision; Prior Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review Refused / Decision on Summons for Extension of Time (application Determined on Papers)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether to grant extension of time to file notice of appeal
- 2 Whether the intended appeal has a realistic prospect of success
- 3 Weight to be given to applicant's refusal to give evidence and credibility findings by the Board
Ratio Decidendi
Extension of time refused because the applicant's delay (over 15 months) was serious and there was no realistic prospect of success: the Board found the claim unsubstantiated and the applicant refused to give evidence, leading the Board to reject his credibility; on that basis the court exercised its discretion and refused the extension.
Court Disposition
Extension of time refused; application dismissed.
Orders
- Extension of time to file the notice of appeal refused
- Application dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
bjbj 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 Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent 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 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 ), dismissed his appeal. He applied to the Court for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board s Decision. This Court, by Form CALL-1 dated 21 March 2022 ( the Court s decision ) refused his application. The applicant filed a summons and an affirmation on 1 August 2023 applying for extension of time for filing the notice of appeal. 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 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. 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 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. 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]. The applicant s claim is that, if refouled, he would be harmed or killed by Malik Mohammad Yousuf ( Malik ). The Director of Immigration refused his application for the reason that his claim was not substantiated. He appealed to the Board. 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. The applicant has raised no valid ground to challenge the Court s decision. I find that the applicant has not been able to show that there is any realistic prospect of success in his intended appeal. 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. PAGE - A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V hCkE hCkE h *6 hgLT hgLT hCkE gdCkE gdD,U hna$ hna$ hna$ hna$ hna$ hna$ hna$ hna$ hna$ {wsosokgk h *6 hna$ hna$ hna$ hna$ hna$ gdD,U gdj& gdD,U ~sosg hD,U h{"h gd& gd# gd8_ gd2^ gd# h9ie h *6 hgLT hD,U gd8_ gd8_ [Content_Types].xml _rels/.rels theme/theme/themeManager.xml K Y, sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml $O}) Xp90 +PHI| PP yu 9xu5 fs+W VF7H q=. 8}d- qyI@ j!Q_ jyV` |PZ+ T ""p < 4V O&x$ A8>v ;EUC n 8r *~P(5 .}x E /,EE\} theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels 5 6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/> [Content_Types].xml dlyLho ;d]6 yJ.; _rels/.rels fLV:* ]m@= T;GI b9`5 drs/e2oDoc.xml ~XMf #R+^ \w(Ljl f}#- e^NV 0?j ! .j$ drs/downrev.xmlL Py9\ [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK drs/e2oDoc.xmlPK drs/downrev.xmlPK [Content_Types].xml dlyLho ;d]6 yJ.; _rels/.rels fLV:* ]m@= T;GI b9`5 drs/e2oDoc.xml s\^ ] P7,0 S6w C@K3 Y5Lo rBfsJ OH^, AUENil drs/downrev.xmlL 6#K)V [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK drs/e2oDoc.xmlPK drs/downrev.xmlPK [Content_Types].xml dlyLho ;d]6 yJ.; _rels/.rels fLV:* ]m@= T;GI b9`5 drs/e2oDoc.xml [qV{i .=A ?Y$j Cw^G .fiV 0#e+ =6"J drs/downrev.xmlL Py9\ [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK drs/e2oDoc.xmlPK drs/downrev.xmlPK [Content_Types].xml dlyLho ;d]6 yJ.; _rels/.rels fLV:* ]m@= T;GI b9`5 drs/e2oDoc.xml qu=t- V%N/ rEoJ $qU#: F#^D .=A ^6Lm N&gGG 6iJI L)! t86" !mVx& cxN` tx*B drs/downrev.xmlL 6#K)V [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK drs/e2oDoc.xmlPK drs/downrev.xmlPK &tBL _V5i HCSD 17/2012 High Court CACC 283-2007.dot Windows User Microsoft Office Word Judiciary Hong Kong HCSD 17/2012 Title <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?><b:Sources SelectedStyle="\APA.XSL" StyleName="APA" xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"></b:Sources> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> <ds:datastoreItem ds:itemID="{816DA16D-CECF-419A-8B02-C69018FC34AC}" xmlns:ds="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/customXml"><ds:schemaRefs><ds:schemaRef ds:uri="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"/></ds:schemaRefs></ds:datastoreItem> Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8