EMELITA ARISTA v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 879/2019

[2023] HKCFI 1576

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 879 OF 2019

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 19 January 2023 I refused to extend time to the late application of the applicant for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in rejecting/dismissing her appeal/petition regarding her non-refoulement claim upon finding that there was no good reason for her serious delay of 5 months late with her application, that none of her proposed grounds were reasonably arguable for her intended challenge, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in her process before the Director of Immigration (“Director”) 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 6 April 2023 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 the High Court, Cap 4A expired on 2 February 2023, and hence she was more than 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 success 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 Gurang Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346.

4.  In the applicant’s case, a delay of more than 2 months must be considered as substantial and inordinate, for which she explained at the hearing of her summons that she never received the decision in the mail, and that it was only later that she was so informed when she attended the West Kowloon Magistrate Court over the matter of her overstaying in Hong Kong, but 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 of 19 January 2023 to the applicant’s last reported address which is the same as stated in her present application and without being returned through undelivered post, and in the absence of any evidence to corroborate her barest of assertions, I am not satisfied that the applicant has provided any good or valid reason for her serious delay.

6.  More importantly, the applicant also failed to 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 reasonably be argued that the decision was unfair or unreasonable either in her summons or her affirmation, and at the hearing of her summons she just repeated her claim as before that her life is still in danger in her home country. 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, and for the reasons given, it would be futile to extend time for what appears to be a hopeless appeal. I accordingly refuse her application for extension of time to appeal, and dismiss her summons.