RE GOLE SURYA

HCAL 7/2018

[2019] HKCFI 188

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 7 OF 2018

______________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  On 28 September 2018 I refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board(“the Board”) in dismissing his appeal/petition regarding his non-‌refoulement claim upon finding none of the grounds put forward by him as reasonably arguable or with any prospect of success in his intended application.

2.  The applicant now by a summons issued on 23 October 2018 seeks leave to appeal against that decision out of time, as the 14-day period for him to lodge his appeal under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A expired on 12 October 2018, and hence he was late by 11 days.

3.  In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the Court will have regard to (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted.

4.  In the applicant’s case the length of the delay was 11 days, for which he explained in his supporting affirmation of the same date that he had had to find someone to translate the contents of the decision to him and that it was not until 19 October 2018 that he was told of the 14-day period to appeal for which he then had to prepare the necessary documents.  As the delay does not seem to me substantial, I propose to focus on the prospect of his intended appeal.

5.  However, he did not provide either in the summons or his affirmation any draft or proposed ground for his appeal, or any particulars as to any error in the decision or why he thinks it was unfair or unreasonable,and at the hearing of his summons he confirmed he was unable to find any error in the decision but that he simply did not want to leave Hong Kong or to return to his home country.  I am therefore unable to see any prospect of success in his intended appeal.

6.  In the premises it would be futile to extend time for what appears to me a hopeless appeal.  Accordingly I refuse his application for leave to appeal out of time, and dismiss his summons.