RE NGUYEN VAN LOC

HCAL 1058/2018

[2021] HKCFI 2297

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1058 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 14 April 2021 I refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) or of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in rejecting/dismissing his non-refoulement claim upon finding that none of the grounds put forward by him reasonably arguable for his 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 his intended application.

2.  The applicant now by a summons issued on 10 May 2021 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 High Court, Cap 4A ended on 28 April 2021, and hence he was 12 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, 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 12 days may not be considered as substantial, for which he did not provide any explanation in his summons or supporting affirmation, nor did he attend the scheduled and re-scheduled hearings of his summons without any valid reason.

5.  The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day to his last reported address without being returned through undelivered post, and in the absence of any proper explanation from the applicant, I do not see any good reason for his delay.

6.  More importantly, nor did he put forward any proper or valid draft or proposed grounds of appeal, or any particulars of any error in the decision or why it may be reasonably arguable that the decision was unfair or unreasonable either in his summons or in his affirmation in which he merely repeated his claim that his life would still be at risk from harm from his creditor over his debts problem if returned to his home country, and that as noted above he also failed to attend the hearing of his summons without explanation. 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 either.

7.  In the premises, and for the reasons given, it would be futile to extend time for what appears to be a hopeless appeal. Accordingly, I refuse his application for extension of time to appeal, and dismiss his summons.