RE AHMED SAJJAD

HCAL 1201/2018

[2019] HKCFI 2493

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1201 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

_____________

DECISION

_____________

1.  On 6 May 2019 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board(“the 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/Board or its decision, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success in his intended application.

2.  The Applicant now by a summons issued on 8 August 2019 seeks leave to appeal against that decision out of time, as the 14-day period for him to file his appeal under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A ended on 20 May 2019, and hence he was late by more than 10 weeks with his intended appeal. 

3.  In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to appeal 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 more than 10 weeks must be considered as significant or excessive, for which he explained at the hearing that he was detained shortly after the decision at the Castle Peak Bay Immigration Centre, and that he had had to find a lawyer to help him to prepare the documents for his appeal, hence he was late with his notice of appeal.

5.  Whilst accepting that there would be some difficulties in accessing legal assistance and in getting documents out while being detained,the fact is that he was still able to get a lawyer to prepare his documents while being detained, I am not persuaded that this explanation can be accepted as a good reason for his delay.

6.  More importantly, all his proposed grounds of appeal attached to his summons appear to be just his complaints against the Director or the adjudicator in his process before them or in their decisions, when none of which I had earlier already found as reasonably arguable in his intended application for judicial review, instead of proper grounds of appeal directed against my decision, and in the absence of any error in my 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 leave to appeal out of time, and dismiss his summons.