GOLAM KIBRIA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 3473/2019

[2023] HKCFI 355

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 3473 OF 2019

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 12 January 2022 I refused to grant leave to the applicant 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 none of his proposed grounds were reasonably arguable for his intended challenge, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in his 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 7 October 2022 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 expired on 26 January 2022, and hence he was more than 8 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 success 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 Gurang Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346.

4.  In the applicant’s case, a delay of more than 8 months must be considered as very substantial and inordinate, for which he explained at the hearing of his summons that after the court’s decision he was ready to accept the result and to return to his home country, but later when he was informed by his family that the situation in Bangladesh became worse and that his problem had remained unresolved, and so he changed his mind about leaving Hong Kong and decided to appeal against the decision, but by then he was already out of time with his 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 evidence to corroborate his bare assertion, and even if he did really change his mind about returning to his home country, that by itself cannot be accepted as any good reason or justification for his 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 his affirmation, and at the hearing of his summons he just stated that he simply does not want to leave Hong Kong at this period of time. 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.