RE TRAN VAN MANH

HCAL 903/2021

[2022] HKCFI 2176

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 903 OF 2021

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 23 November 2021 I refused to extend time to the late application of the Applicant for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in rejecting/dismissing his appeal/petition regarding his non-refoulement claim upon finding that there was no good reason for his extremely substantial delay of more than 19 months with his application, that none of his proposed grounds were reasonably arguable for his intended challenge, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the process before the Director of Immigration (“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 issued on 16 December 2021 seeks extension of time to appeal against that decision, 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 7 December 2021, and hence he was some 9 days late with his intended appeal.

3.  In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply 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 9 days may not be considered as substantial or inordinate, for which he explained in his affirmation and at the hearing of his summons that he cannot read English and had had to seek help from his friend to explain the decision to him and to help him to prepare the documents for the appeal but by the time when he was ready to do so he was already out of time.

5.  The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day to the Applicant’s last reported address without being returned through undelivered post, and it seems that he did have proper legal assistance for his present application, but given his relatively insignificant delay, I propose to focus on the prospect of his intended appeal.

6.  However, the Applicant has failed to put forth any proper or valid draft or proposed grounds of appeal, or any particulars of any error in the decision or why it may reasonably be argued that the decision was unfair or unreasonable in his summons, while in his affirmation he just stated that decision was reached unfairly without allowing him an opportunity to clarify his case and the situation in his home country but without providing any further details or particulars or elaboration as to how it did so given the fact that he did attend an oral hearing of his leave application during which he was able to fully present his case and made his submissions to the Court, and that at the hearing of his summons he just repeated his claim as before that he still faces the risk of being killed by his creditor over his unpaid debts if refouled to his home country. As such and in the absence of any error in the decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not see any prospect of success in his intended appeal.

7.  In the premises, and for the reasons given, it would be futile to extend time for what appears to be a hopeless appeal. I accordingly refuse his application for extension of time to appeal, and dismiss his summons.