RE GURPREET SINGH

HCAL 733/2018

[2021] HKCFI 662

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 733 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 22 September 2020 I refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in dismissing his appeal regarding his non-refoulement claim upon finding 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 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 14 October 2020 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 expired on 6 October 2020, and hence he was late by 8 days 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 8 days may not be regarded as significant, for which he explained both in his affirmation and at the hearing of his summons that as he was unrepresented and did not know what to do after receiving the decision or how to challenge it until he was advised by a friend that he could appeal, but by then he was already out of time to do so.

5.  Ignorance of the rule however cannot be accepted as an excuse for its non-compliance, and as the court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day to the applicant’s last reported address which is the same as stated in his present application without being returned through undelivered post, I am not satisfied that he has any good reason for his albeit relatively insignificant delay.          

6.  More significantly however is that he 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 be reasonably argued that the decision was unfair or unreasonable either in his summons or affirmation, and at the hearing of his summons he merely repeated his claim that his problem in his home country still persists. 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, 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.