RE PHUNG THI MAI

HCAL 1629/2021

[2022] HKCFI 2277

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1629 OF 2021

_____________

_____________

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

1.  On 29 December 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 her appeal/petition regarding her non-refoulement claim upon finding that there was no good reason for her serious delay of more than 10 months with her application, that none of her proposed grounds were reasonably arguable for her 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 her intended application.

2.  The Applicant now by a summons issued on 17 February 2022 seeks extension of time to appeal against that decision, as the 14-day period for her to file her appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of High Court, Cap 4A ended on 12 January 2022, and hence she was some 5 weeks late with her 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 5 weeks must be considered as substantial or inordinate, for which she explained both in her affirmation and at the hearing of her summons that she never received the decision in the mail, and that it was later when she reported to the Immigration Department on her recognizance that she was so informed by her immigration officer, but by then she was already out of time with her intended appeal.

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 in the absence of any further details or evidence to corroborate her bare assertions, I am not satisfied that she has provided a good reason for her serious delay.

6.  More importantly, 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 either in her summons or her affirmation in which she just stated that the decision was “reached unfairly without allowing (her) an opportunity to clarify (her) case and situation in (her) country”, of which I take it to mean that her application was dealt with by the Court without any oral hearing, but for which she never requested any in the first place, and that it is a matter entirely within the Court’s discretion, while at the hearing of her summons she was unable to show any prejudice which she might have suffered as a result other than just repeating her claim as before of fear of harm from her creditor over her outstanding debts if refouled to her 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 her 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 her application for extension of time to appeal, and dismiss her summons.