RE ANYIAM PRINCE NNAMAKA

HCAL 887/2017

[2018] HKCFI 2437

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 887 OF 2017

______________

______________

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

1.  On 22 July 2018 I refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in rejecting and dismissing his appeal/petition regarding his non-refoulement claim upon finding no grounds had been put forward by him for his application, and that there were no reasonably arguable grounds or any prospect of success in his intended application.

2.  The applicant now by a summons issued on 18 October 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 6 July 2018, and hence he was late by more than three months with his application.

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 more than three months must be regarded as substantial. In his supporting affirmation of the same date he explained that he did not receive any letter from the Court and hence was not aware of the decision until he was told by the Immigration Department when he reported on his recognizance, but as he is still residing at the same address to which the Court’s decision was posted as evidenced by the same address stated in his summons now before me, and in the absence of any further evidence or particulars from him as he failed to appear at the hearing of his summons, for which he subsequently gave the same reason that he did not receive the notice of hearing from the Court. In the circumstances I am not satisfied that his explanation for his delay is credible.

5.  More importantly, he did not produce any draft or proposed ground for his appeal either in his summons or his affirmation, nor did he provide any particulars as to any error in the decision or why he considered it unfair or unreasonable, in the absence of which I am unable to find 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.