RE CUNANAN BELLA SAMILING

HCAL 505/2018

[2020] HKCFI 2163

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 505 OF 2018  

_____________

_____________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

1.  On 27 July 2020 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) or the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in rejecting/dismissing her non-refoulement claim upon finding that none of the grounds put forward by her reasonably arguable for her intended challenge, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the process before the 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 11 August 2020 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 10 August 2020, and hence she was late by 1 day 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 The 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 day cannot on any view be considered as significant, for which she explained in her supporting affidavit that she did not receive the decision until 5 August 2020 when she was informed by her immigration officer, and hence she did not have sufficient time to seek help and to file her appeal within the required 14-day period.  

5.  Given the insignificance of her delay, and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the general mail service which was in operation during the material time for only 3 days per week and which may explain the problem caused to the Applicant regarding her receipt of the decision in the mail, and for which I accept as a valid explanation for her delay. 

6.  Accordingly, and in view of the current public health situation due to the Covid-19 pandemic, I propose to deal with the matter on paper, and for the reasons given I extend time for the Applicant to file her notice of appeal within 14 days of this order.