RE PARVINDER SINGH

HCAL 381/2021

[2021] HKCFI 3257

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO  381 OF 2021

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

The application

1.  The Applicant, by summons dated 24 June 2021, applies for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Court”)  given on 4 June 2021 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board in dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration regarding his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The 14 day period for the Applicant to file his appeal against the decision of the Court ended on 18 June 2021 and hence he was 6 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, a 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.

4.  In the Applicant’s case, the delay was of 6 days.  In his affirmation he explained the delay by saying that he received the letter from the court late and therefore was late in filing his appeal.

5.  The court record shows that the decision of the Court was sent on the same day that the decision was made to the last reported address of the Applicant (which address was confirmed by the Applicant when he attended the hearing before the Court on 18 May 2021).  It is inconceivable that the decision of the Court would have taken longer than 14 days to reach the Applicant.  I cannot accept his explanation for the delay.

6.  As for the prospect of the intended appeal, the Applicant stated in his affirmation in support that the decision of the Court was reached unfairly without allowing him an opportunity to clarify his case and the situation in his country.  However, it cannot be disputed that the Applicant attended the hearing before the Court on 18 May 2021 when he would have been given every opportunity to say to the Court whatever he wanted to say.

7.  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].”

8.  This being an application to extend time for appealing against the decision of the Court, it is for the Applicant to show that there is a reasonably arguable appeal.  This he has not done.

9.  In the premises, it would be futile to extend time for what would appear to be a hopeless appeal. Accordingly, I refuse the Applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of the Court and dismiss the summons.