BIPLOB S M alias BIPLOBE alias MD RAJON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 68/2023

[2023] HKCFI 2072

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 68 OF 2023

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 11 May 2023 Deputy High Court Judge To 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 his appeal/petition regarding his non-refoulement claim upon finding that there was no good reason for his extremely serious delay of almost 3 years with his leave application, 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 29 June 2023 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 25 May 2023, and hence he was more than 1 month 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 1 month must be considered as substantial and inordinate, for which he explained in his affirmation that he did not have the financial means to pay for the filing fees for his intended appeal but without providing any further details or evidence.

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 of lack of financial means to pay for the filing of his intended appeal which even if true cannot be accepted as a valid reason for failing to comply with the procedural rules.

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 in which he just repeated his claim as before. 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, and in view of the Director’s subsequent confirmation that the Applicant was on 26 July 2023 repatriated to his home country, I accordingly dismiss his summons.