MUNIYAPPAN THANGAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 368/2020 [2023] HKCFI 1694 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 368 OF 2020 _____________ BETWEEN Muniyappan Thangam 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: 10 July 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”), rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decisions. This Court, by Form CALL-1 dated 5 May 2023 (“the Court’s decision”) refused his application. The applicant filed a summons and an affirmation on 14 June 2023, applying for extension of time for filing the notice of appeal. In his affirmation, he said that he is not satisfied with the decisions of the Director or the Board. He also said he cannot go back to his country because his life will be in danger. 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 20 May 2023. The applicant is late for about 4 weeks. I shall consider the merits of his case. 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 the police in his hometown because they considered him to be a suspect in the murder of the son of a high ranking police officer. The Director of Immigration refused his application for the reason that his claim was not substantiated. He appealed to the Board. He was out of time to file his notice of appeal. The Board found that he had no good reason for his delay. Furthermore, the Board considered the merits of his case and found that there were no merits in his claim. The Board therefore refused to extend time for his appeal. The applicant is unable to raise any valid reason to challenge the Board’s Decision. In the circumstances, 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.