ARIF v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 768/2021

[2024] HKCFI 834

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 768 OF 2021

_____________

_____________

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

1.  On 19 October 2023 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in rejecting/dismissing his non-refoulement claim upon finding that 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 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 20 December 2023 seeks extension of time to appeal against that decision, as the 14-day period after the decision within which to file his appeal under Order 53 Rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A expired on 2 November 2023, and hence he was more than 1 ½ months 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 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 1 ½ months must be considered as substantial and inordinate, for which he explained at the hearing of his summons that he has since July 2023 been detained by the Immigration Department at Tai Tam Gap Correctional Institution and had had difficulty getting money to pay for his intended appeal which accounted for the delay.

5.  The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 19 October 2023 to the Applicant’s detention at Tai Tam Gap Correctional Institution without being returned through undelivered post, and while accepting that there would be various inconveniences or difficulties in seeking assistance for his intended appeal while in detention, I am not satisfied that they could justify his such serious delay.

6.  More importantly, the Applicant also 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 either in his summons or in his affirmation other than just some bare assertions that he was not given any opportunity to produce supporting documents and that the Court just relied on the Board’s decision without much consideration of his claim but without providing any relevant details or particulars or elaboration to corroborate his such assertions, nor was he able to do so at the hearing of his summons. 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. Accordingly, I refuse his application for extension of time to appeal, and dismiss his summons.