RE HAQUE FATAUL ALIAS MASOOD A K M

HCAL 635/2018

[2020] HKCFI 1155

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 635 OF 2018

_____________________________________

_____________________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  On 4 December 2019 I refused to extend time to the Applicant’s late application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) and the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in rejecting/dismissing his non-refoulement claim upon finding that there was no good reason for his almost two months’ delay with his application, that 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 16 December 2019 seeks leave to appeal against that decision which was interlocutory in nature: see Kwok Cheuk Kin v Leung Chun Ying [2018] HKCA 419, and section 14AA of the High Court Ordinance, Cap 4 provides that no appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal from an interlocutory judgment or order of the Court of First Instance in any civil cause or matter unless leave to appeal has been granted.

3.  In considering whether to grant leave to appeal, section 14AA(4) of the Ordinance provides that leave shall not be granted unless the court hearing the application for leave is satisfied that –

(a) the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success; or

(b) there is some other reason in the interest of justice why the appeal should be heard.

4.  The threshold test for reasonable prospect of success was given by Hon Le Pichon in SMSE v KL [2009] 4 HKLRD 125 at [17]:

“ The section requires that the court be satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success or there is some other reason in the interests of justice why the appeal should be heard before granting leave. Reasonable prospects of success involves the notion that the prospects of succeeding must be ‘reasonable’ and therefore more than ‘fanciful’, without having to be ‘probable’.”

5.  In the present case, the Applicant in his written submission exhibited to his supporting affirmation cited various law and principles which do not appear to be relevant to his case, and merely repeated some of his complaints directed against the Board’s decision for dismissing his claim instead of referring to the decision which he now seeks to appeal, nor did he put forward any draft or proposed grounds of appeal, or any particulars of any error in the decision, or why it may be argued that the decision was unfair or unreasonable. As such and in the absence of any error in the decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I am not satisfied that there is any prospect of success in his intended appeal, nor is there any other reason in the interest of justice why his appeal should be heard. 

6.  In the premises and for the reasons given, I refuse to grant leave to the Applicant to appeal, and accordingly dismiss his summons.