RE RAMIREZ BELTRAN CLAUDIA LORENA

HCAL 515/2018

[2020] HKCFI 2481

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 515 OF 2018  

_____________

_____________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  On 14 August 2019 Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam refused to extend time to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in dismissing her appeal regarding her non-refoulement claim upon finding no good reason for her delay, that none of the grounds put forward by her reasonably arguable for her intended challenge, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the process before the Director of Immigration 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 7 May 2020 seeks leave to appeal against that decision out of time, as the 14-day period for her to file her appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of High Court, Cap 4A ended on 28 August 2019, and hence she was late by more than 8 months 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 more than 8 months must be considered as very substantial and excessive, and even if one were to take into account of the impact of the general adjourned period (“GAP”) of legal proceedings from 29 January 2020 to 3 May 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Applicant’s delay would still amount to at least 4 months, for which she did not provide any explanation in her supporting affirmation, nor did she appear at the hearing of her summons without any reasonable cause. In the circumstances I do not find any valid reason for her significant delay.   

5.  More importantly, nor did she in her summons or supporting affirmation provide any draft or proposed grounds of appeal, or any particulars of any error in the decision, or why it may be reasonably argued that the decision was unfair or unreasonable, other than a broad and vague assertion that the decision is unfair and unreasonable but without providing any particulars or elaborations as to why it is so. 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.     

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