RE HARJEET SINGH

HCAL 46/2018

[2019] HKCFI 187

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 46 OF 2018

______________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  On 19 October 2018 I refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) and the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in dismissing his appeal/petition regarding his non-refoulement claim upon finding none of the grounds put forward by him as reasonably arguable or with any prospect of success in his intended application.

2.  The applicant now by a summons issued on 16 November 2018 seeks leave to appeal against that decision out of time, as the 14-day period for him to lodge his appeal under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A ended on 2 November 2018, and hence he was late by two weeks.

3.  In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the Court will have regard to (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted.

4.  In the applicant’s case a delay of two weeks may not be regarded as insignificant, for which he claimed in his supporting affirmation of the same date not to have received the order or the decision from the Court and hence was not aware of the decision until he was informed by the Immigration Officer.  However, as he also confirmed that during that period of time he did not change his address provided to the Court which is in fact still where he is residing, I have reservation with his explanation, but I propose to focus on the prospect of his intended appeal. 

5.  However, he did not provide any draft or proposed ground for his appeal, or any particulars as to any error in the decision or why it was unreasonable or unfair, and at the hearing of his summons when he was invited to do so, he was still unable to provide any and in fact confirmed that he was unable to find any error in the decision, but that he simply did not want to leave Hong Kong.  In the circumstances I am unable to see any prospect of success in his intended appeal.

6.  In the premises it would be futile to extend time for what appears to me a hopeless appeal.  Accordingly I refuse his application for leave to appeal out of time, and dismiss his summons.