AMANDEEP SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 1549/2024

[2025] HKCFI 130

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 1549 OF 2024

_____________

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.  On 10 October 2024 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of a decision 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 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 30 October 2024 seeks extension of time to appeal against that decision, as the 14-day period after the decision within which to file his appeal under Order 53 Rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap. 4A expired on 24 October 2024, and hence he was 6 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 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 6 days may not be considered as substantial or significant, for which he explained in his affirmation and at the hearing of his summons that he has been detained by the Immigration Department at the Castle Peak Bay Immigration Centre (“CIC”), and as he was without legal representation that he did not realize the 14-day time limit for him to file his appeal, and for which he had had to seek help from outside to prepare the necessary documents for him to do so.

5.  The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 10 October 2024 to the Applicant’s present detention at CIC without being returned through undelivered post, while ignorance of the procedural rules can never be accepted as justification for their non-compliance, but given his detention and the fairly insignificance of the delay, I propose to focus on the prospect of his intended appeal.

6.  In his supporting affirmation the Applicant stated as follows:

“I am the Applicant herein.

I believe that the decision made by High Court Judge Bruno Chan was reached unfairly. I was not given adequate opportunity to clarify my case and present the full extent of my situation in my country. As a litigant in person and unrepresented, I faced difficulties in effectively presenting my arguments and providing all necessary information to the court.

I would like to inform the Court that I have been detained at Castle Peak Bay Immigration Centre since arriving in Hong Kong six months ago. Being uneducated, I had no understanding of legal proceedings, and I followed the instructions given to me by my case officer and roommates in the Centre.

My appeal is out of time because I was unaware of the specific documents required to be filed in the High Court and the associated deadlines. Consequently, I did not realize that I needed to file an appeal within the 14-day time limit. I kindly request an extension of time to file my appeal.”

7.  At the hearing the Applicant relied on the above as his grounds of appeal without providing any further details as to how the decision of the Court was reached unfairly or how he was not given adequate opportunity to present his case when he never requested any oral hearing of his application. More importantly, the Applicant has 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 in his affirmation, nor was he as noted above able to do so at the hearing of his summons. 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.

8.  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.