RE ELOK PASMAWATI

HCAL 10/2019

[2022] HKCFI 1698

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 10 OF 2019

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 1 September 2021 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) or of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in rejecting/dismissing her non-refoulement claim upon finding that none of her proposed grounds were reasonably arguable for her 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 her intended application.

2.  The Applicant now by a summons issued on 15 December 2021 seeks extension of time to appeal against that decision, as the 14-day period for her to file her appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A ended on 15 September 2021, and hence she was 3 months late with her 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 3 months must be considered as very substantial or inordinate, for which she explained at the hearing of her summons that at that time she had moved to another address but did not inform the court of her new address as she did not know she was required to do so, and hence she never received the decision in the mail, and it was until later when she reported to the Immigration Department on her recognizance that she was informed by her immigration officer of the same, but by then she was already out of time with her intended appeal.

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 as it was her duty to inform the authorities of any change to her residential or correspondence address as soon as practicable, and if she failed to so inform the court, she has only herself to blame for not receiving the decision in the mail. In the circumstances I am not satisfied that the Applicant has provided a good reason for her serious delay.

6.  More importantly, the Applicant has 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 her summons or her affirmation, and at the hearing of her summons she could only repeat her claim as before of fear of being harmed or killed by her former boyfriend over their personal dispute. 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 her 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 her application for extension of time to appeal, and dismiss her summons.