HASSAN NASER ABDIRAHMAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 193/2022

[2023] HKCFI 917

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 193 OF 2022

____________

____________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

Introduction

1.  This is the Applicant’s application by summons filed on 20 March 2023 (the “Summons”) for extension of time to appeal the order of this Court dated 1 September 2022 (the “Order”) refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision (the “Decision”) of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”) dated 5 May 2020 (the “leave application”).

The Law

2.  Under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, where an application for leave to apply for judicial review is refused by a judge, the applicant may appeal the judge’s order to the Court of Appeal within 14 days after such order was made. By the time when the Summons was filed, the application is six months and five days out of time, which is very substantial in the context of a fourteen-day appeal period.

3.  In Jagg Singh v Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office[1] and Director of Immigration and William Lam[2], the Court of Appeal held that what may constitute a good reason for extending time cannot be defined. In most cases, this would be a “multi-faceted question” the answer to which would depend on the circumstances of each case. The following factors, which are not exhaustive, are likely to be of significance in determining whether to grant extension of time:

(1)  length of delay;

(2)  reasons for the delay;

(3)  prospect of success in the intended appeal; and

(4)  prejudice to the respondent if extension was granted.

Usually, prospect of success in the intended appeal is the determinant factor. If the delay is short and there are reasonable explanations for the delay, the Court would be more relaxed in respect of the other factors. If the delay is substantial and unexplained, usually extension of time will be refused because the statutory time limits are meant to be observed. In addition, an unexplained and substantial delay also reflects an absence of genuine intention to persecute the appeal.

Length of delay and reasons for the delay

4.  The Court notes that the Applicant’s address as stated in his Summons is the same as the address to which the Order and Form CALL-1 were sent. The Applicant had obviously received the Order. But, he did not give any explanation for the very substantial delay of more than six months. In view of the above and the very substantial delay, I do not find it necessary to explore the reasons for the delay with him.

Grounds of appeal and prospect of success of the intended appeal

5.  The Applicant has not put forward any grounds of appeal. In his Summons he simply said he wanted extension of time for filing the appeal. In his supporting affirmation, he said: “I need the Court of Appeal Look Back again the Ground of case coz my case was Reject with out Looking properly.” In effect, he is seeking a re-assessment of his case for non-refoulement protection by the Court of Appeal.

6.  It is well settled law that the role of the courts in judicial review, including the Court of Appeal, is not to re-assess the non-refoulement claims afresh. The primary decision-makers in a claim for non-refoulement are the Director and the Board. They alone assess the evidence and find facts including those relating to the matters allegedly giving rise to the non-refoulement claim, risk of harm, availability of state protection and viability of internal relocation. In a judicial review, the court will scrutinize the Board’s decision, and intervene only for errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality: see Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration[3]. The Board’s Decision is basically a finding of fact which the Court in a judicial review will not interfere save for errors of law, procedural unfairness and irrationality in its Decision.

7.  The Applicant’s ground for judicial review as stated in his affirmation is that the Board did not deeply investigate or clearly look into his problem, particularly that his father was murdered and the rest of his family had fled. This is the same ground he is now putting forward in the intended appeal. All these are factual issues for the Board. For reasons as explained in Paragraph 22 of the Form CALL-1, this Court could not find any such vitiating elements in the Board’s finding and Decision. Hence, his leave application was refused.

8.  The Applicant has not advanced any specific challenge against this Court’s Order or decision in the Form CALL-1. He has not identified the errors of this Court in refusing his leave application. Thus, by his intended appeal, he is seeking to challenge this Court’s finding that the Board’s Decision had not been tainted by any of the above vitiating elements, which is the sole ground for which the Court may review the Decision of the Board; but he has not provided any arguable basis for challenging this Court’s decision. He has not identified what was wrong with this Court’s finding that the Board’s decision had not been tainted by errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality. Having rigorously re-examined the Decision, the Form CALL-1 and all the papers with anxious scrutiny, this Court is unable to detect any such vitiating elements. The Applicant has advanced no valid ground of appeal against this Court’s Order and decision. His intended appeal has no prospect of success.

Prejudice to the respondent

9.  The prejudice to the proposed respondent and to public administration if a challenge is allowed to proceed is obvious. The delay is by itself an abuse of the process of the court and the non-refoulement protection arrangement. To allow the challenge which has no prospect of success to proceed would encourage other claimants to indulge in such abuse. It would cause unnecessary waste of judicial and public resources and delay the genuine non-refoulement claimants’ access to the court. It would render it difficult for the Director to perform his duty of maintaining immigration control. Above all, it would make it difficult or unduly burdensome for Hong Kong to honour its international obligations under the various conventions to protect people from persecution, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Allowing the application to proceed may subject the whole system of non-refoulement protection to serious abuse to the prejudice of Hong Kong.

Conclusion

10.  The Applicant has no valid explanation for the very substantial delay. His intended appeal has no prospect of success. To allow such an un-meritorious challenge to proceed would be prejudicial to the intended respondent and the administration. Accordingly, his application for extension of time to appeal is refused.