RE IDREES MUHAMMAD USMAN

HCAL 1360/2018

[2021] HKCFI 2255

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1360 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 4 May 2021 I refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) or of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in rejecting/dismissing 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 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 20 May 2021 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 ended on 18 May 2021, and hence he was 2 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 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 2 days may on any view be regarded as insignificant, for which he just stated in his supporting affirmation that he received the decision late in the mail and that he had had to seek help to assist him to appeal.

5.  The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day to his last reported address which is the same as stated in his present application without being returned through undelivered post, but given the insignificance of his delay, I propose to focus on the prospect of success in his intended appeal.

6.  However, the applicant did not 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 arguable that the decision was unfair or unreasonable in his summons or in his affirmation, and in the document attached to his affirmation as Exhibit “A” and with a title of “Grounds on which relief is sought”, he merely stated “I am genuine Non-refoulement claimant who faced all the problem in Pakistan and I am unable to find any place to stay in Pakistan”, while he also failed to attend the hearing of his summons without explanation. 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 either.

7.  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.