SHOHIDUL ISLAM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 2495/2019

[2024] HKCFI 2042

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2495 OF 2019

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 9 June 2023 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 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 24 June 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 23 June 2023, and hence he was 1 year 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 1 year must be considered as extremely substantial and inordinate, for which he explained at the hearing of his summons that he was then and still is being detained by the Immigration Department at Tai Tam Gap Correctional Institution that he did not know how to appeal until much later when he was able to seek help from a friend, but by then he was already out of time with his intended appeal.

5.  The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 9 June 2023 to the Applicant at his detention at Tai Tam Gap Correctional Institution without being returned through undelivered post, and with the availability of stationed welfare officers to assist detained inmates including the Applicant, of which he readily conceded at the hearing, I am unable to see any justification for his such serious delay.

6.  More importantly, the Applicant also 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 made bare assertions of the decision being unfair without allowing him an opportunity to clarify his case and situation in his home country but without providing any necessary details or particulars or elaboration as to how it was so, nor was he able to do so 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.