WAJID SYED ZAKIR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 757/2022

[2025] HKCFI 653

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 757 OF 2022

_____________

_____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.  On 7 November 2024 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in rejecting/dismissing his non-refoulement claim upon finding that none of the grounds put forward by him were reasonably arguable for his intended challenge, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the process before the Director of Immigration (“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 5 December 2024 seeks extension of time to appeal against that decision, as the 14-day period after the decision within which to file his appeal under Order 53 Rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap. 4A expired on 21 November 2024, and hence he was 2 weeks late 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 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 only 2 weeks in his situation may not necessarily be considered as insignificant, for which he explained at the hearing of his summons that being unrepresented and detained by the Immigration Department, he needed to seek help from his friends from outside with his application which explained for the slight delay.

5.  The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 7 November 2024 to the Applicant’s then detention at Tai Tam Gap Correctional Institution without being returned through undelivered post, and accepting the Applicant’s explanation that he might have indeed needed help from his friends outside with his application, and given his relatively insubstantial delay, I propose to focus on the prospect of success of his intended appeal.

6.  However, the Applicant 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 his summons or in his affirmation in which he just repeated his claim as before and with some bare assertions that Court’s decision was reached unfairly without allowing him an opportunity to clarify his case and situation but without any necessary or relevant details or particulars or elaboration as to how it was so given that he did attend an oral hearing for his application before the Court during which he was able to make proper representations for his case with the assistance of an interpreter, nor was he able to put forward any proper ground for his intended appeal at the hearing of his summons. 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, and for the reasons given, 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.