RE DHILLON GURJOTPREET SINGH

HCAL 1236/2018

[2021] HKCFI 3039

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1236 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  On 23 March 2021 Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang refused to extend time to the Applicant’s late application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in dismissing his appeal/petition regarding his non-refoulement claim upon finding that there was no good reason for his substantial delay, 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 1 June 2021 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 High Court, Cap 4A ended on 7 April 2021, and hence he was more than 7 weeks 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 The 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 7 weeks must be considered as very substantial, for which he just asserted in his supporting affirmation that he did not receive the decision in the mail but without any further details or particulars as to how in which case did he become aware of the decision which he now wants to appeal, nor did he attend the hearing of his summons to provide such necessary clarifications.

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 in the absence of any further details or documentary evidence to corroborate his bare assertions, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has provided a good reason for his delay.

6.  More importantly, the Applicant has 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 in his summons, and in his affirmation he just stated that the Court reached the decision unfairly without allowing him an opportunity to clarify his case and situation in his country but without providing any further details or particulars as to how it was so, as the record shows that the Applicant never requested any oral hearing for his leave application in the first place, and as it was in any event a matter entirely within the Court’s discretion, while he as noted above also failed to attend the hearing of his summons so as to elaborate his such argument. 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.