RE GURVINDER SINGH

HCAL 108/2018

[2019] HKCFI 1294

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 108 OF 2018

___________________

___________________

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

1.  This is the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against my decision by way of Form call-1 dated 15 January 2019 (“the Court’s Decision”) out of time.

2.  The Court’s Decision refused the application’s application for leave for judicial review against the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) and the Adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non‑refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) respectively. The Director rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim and the Board refused his appeal against the Director’s Decisions.

3.  In support of this application, the applicant has filed an affirmation dated 12 February 2019, in which he said that he was out of time because there was a delay in the postal delivery of the Court’s Decision because of the intervening holiday and weekend. He also asked this Court to consider that the delay is only a short period of time.

4.  The applicant appeared before this Court on 12 April 2019. He explained that the letter-box contained letters of other residents on the premises. His neighbour had taken his letter with the Court’s Decision. He only returned the letter to the applicant one day after the 14-day appeal period.

5.  The consideration of whether time should be extended for the applicant to take out this application should be the same as held by the Court of Appeal in Khan Mohammad Shadab [2018] HKCA 897, CAMP 75/2018, 4 December 2018, §10 namely, (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted.

6.  I can accept that the delay is a short period of time of about 14 days. There is no other evidence in support of his oral evidence at the hearing. Giving the applicant the benefit of the doubt, I tend to accept what he said in Court. However, he still has to overcome the most important factor, the prospect of the intended appeal.

7.  He has not set out any reasons to say that the Court’s Decision is wrong or that he has good reason in support of his intended appeal. I had explained to him the above legal principles and I asked him if he had any other reasons in support of his application. He conceded that he had no other reasons in support of his application.

8.  It is therefore unnecessary to consider the prejudice to the putative respondent.

9.  In the circumstances, the applicant has no ground to support his application. Accordingly, I dismiss his application for extension of time to appeal the Court’s Decision to the Court of Appeal.