RE HUSSAIN ABDUL RAHAMAN

HCAL 658/2018

[2021] HKCFI 887

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 658 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 31 August 2020 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 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 of Immigration 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 15 October 2020 seeks extension of time to appeal against that decision, as the 14-day period for him to file his appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of High Court, Cap 4A ended on 14 September 2020, and hence he was late by 1 month with his 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 1 month must be regarded as significant, for which he explained at the hearing of his summons that he did not know how to appeal and needed to find someone to help him with his application, but by then he was already out of time to file his notice of appeal.

5.  The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day to his last reported address without being returned, and while accepting that unrepresented litigants-in-person such as the applicant would require help with their legal proceedings, that cannot per se be accepted as a valid reason for breaching the rules, and the fact is that the applicant was already without legal representation after his process before the Director and was able to carry on with his proceedings in person before the Board and in this court without difficulties. In the circumstances I am not satisfied that he has provided any good reason for his delay.

6.  More importantly, nor did he 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 argued that the decision was unfair or unreasonable either in his summons or affirmation, and at the hearing of his summons he could only state that as he does not want to leave Hong Kong, he therefore has to appeal against the decision. 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 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 extension of time to appeal, and dismiss his summons.