RE MOGADO HAIDEE TALOSIG alias MOGADO HAIDEE alias MOGADO HAIDEE T. alias TALOSIG HAIDEE

HCAL 1004/2018

[2021] HKCFI 2257

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1004 OF 2018

____________________

____________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

1.  On 22 April 2021 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 that 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 27 May 2021 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 6 May 2021, and hence she was 3 weeks 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 3 weeks must be considered as significant, for which she explained in both her affirmation and at the hearing of her summons that she never received the decision in the mail, and that she was only later informed by her immigration officer of the same, 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 to her last reported address which is the same as stated in her present application without being returned through undelivered post, and in the absence of any further evidence to corroborate her bare assertions, I am not satisfied that the applicant has provided a good reason for her 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 be reasonably arguable that the decision was unfair or unreasonable either in her summons or her affirmation, and at the hearing she just stated that her problem still exists in her home country and hence she cannot yet return home. 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 either.

7.  In the premises, and for the reasons given, 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.