RE RAHMAN S M SHAFIQUR

HCAL 281/2019

[2022] HKCFI 3077

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 281 OF 2019

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 25 February 2022 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) or the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in rejecting/dismissing his non-refoulement claim upon finding that none of his proposed grounds were 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 10 May 2022 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 the High Court, Cap 4A ended on 11 March 2022, and hence he was 2 months 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 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 2 months must be considered as substantial and inordinate, for which he explained in his affirmation that he had “problem of Covid-19 and could not come out of his house” but without providing any further details or evidence, but at the hearing of his summons he gave another explanation that he received the decision late but could not remember when did he receive it.

5.  The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day to the applicant’s last reported address without being returned through undelivered post, and given his conflicting explanations and the total lack of details or evidence such as the envelope which contained the decision to show its actual postmark to corroborate his such bare and conflicting assertions, I am not satisfied that the applicant has provided any good or valid reason for his serious delay.

6.  More significantly, nor did he 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, and at the hearing of his summons he could only repeat his claim that he still has problem in his home country that he cannot yet return. 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. I accordingly refuse his application for extension of time to appeal, and dismiss his summons.