RE YAKUBU DANLAD

HCAL 82/2018

[2019] HKCFI 2469

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 82 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

1.  On 17 June 2019 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) or of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in rejecting/dismissing his non-refoulement claim upon finding none of the grounds put forward by him reasonably arguable for his intended challenge,that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in his process before the Director or the Board or in their decisions, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success in his intended application.

2.  The Applicant now by a summons dated 30 July 2019 seeks leave to appeal against that decision out of time, as the 14-day period for him to file his appeal under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A ended on 1 July 2019, and hence he was late by about one month with his intended appeal. 

3.  In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to appeal for judicial review, the Court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (iv) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted: see Re MK HCMP 2609/2016, 10 January 2017; Chu On Fong Winter v The Appeal Panel (Housing) HCMP 982/2017, 20 July 2017; Islam Raja Rais v Director of Immigration HCMP 881/2017, 26 June 2017; Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346.

4.  In the Applicant’s case, a delay of one month cannot be said to be insignificant, for which he explained at the hearing that he never received any letter from the Court and hence was not aware of the decision until later when he reported to the Immigration Department and was told so, but the record shows that the decision was in fact sent on the same day by ordinary mail to him at his last reported address and has not been returned through undelivered post.  In the circumstances and the absence of any further supporting evidence from the Applicant, I am not satisfied that he has provided any good reason for his delay.

5.  More importantly, nor did he in his summons or affirmation provide any draft or proposed grounds of appeal, or any particulars of any error in the decision, or why it may be argued that the decision was unfair or unreasonable, and when invited to do so at the hearing, he merely repeated his claim that his problems back home remained unresolved and hence he should be allowed to remain in Hong Kong.  As such and in the absence of any error in the decision being properly identified by the Applicant, I do not see any prospect of success in his intended appeal. 

6.  In the premises, it would be futile to extend time for what appears to be a hopeless appeal.  Accordingly I refuse his application for leave to appeal out of time, and dismiss his summons.