RE RUSYATININGSIH NIMUN

HCAL 950/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1462

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 950 OF 2018 

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 23 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 her appeal regarding her non-refoulement claim upon finding none of the grounds put forward by her reasonably arguable for her 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 her intended application.

2.  The Applicant now by a summons issued on 7 December 2020 seeks extension of time to appeal against that decision, as the 14-day period for her to file her appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of High Court, Cap 4A ended on 7 October 2020, and hence she was 2 months late with her 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 months must be regarded as substantial, for which she explained at the hearing of her summons that she never received the decision in the mail, and that it was only when she received a telephone call from the court sometime in November 2020 that she was informed of the decision, but when it was pointed out to her that no such call had ever been made by the court to her as alleged, she then blamed it on her landlord for handing her the decision much later after it had earlier arrived in her rented residence when by then she was already out of time with her intended appeal.

5.  The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day to the Applicant’s last reported address without being returned through undelivered post, and given her different and conflicting explanations and the absence of any reliable evidence to corroborate her bare assertions, I am not satisfied that she has provided any good reason for her serious delay.  

6.  More importantly, nor did she put forward 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 as she so claimed in her affirmation, and at the hearing she merely repeated her claim that she still has problems in her home country that she cannot go back. 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 her intended appeal.  

7.  In the premises, it would be futile to extend time for what appears to be a hopeless appeal. Accordingly, I refuse her application for extension of time to appeal, and dismiss her summons.