NGUYEN TUAN VINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 708/2022

[2023] HKCFI 416

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 708 OF 2022

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 14 October 2022 I refused to extend time to the late application of the applicant for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in rejecting/dismissing his appeal/petition regarding his non-refoulement claim upon finding that there was no good reason for his extremely serious delay of almost 1 year with his application, that none of his proposed grounds were reasonably arguable for his intended challenge, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in his process before the Director of Immigration (“Director”) or the Board or in their decisions, and that there was no merits or prospect of success in his intended application.

2.  The applicant now by a summons issued on 1 November 2022 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 the High Court, Cap 4A expired on 28 October 2022, and hence he was 4 days 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 success 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 Gurang Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346.

4.  In the applicant’s case, a delay of 4 days may not on any view be considered as significant, for which he explained in his affirmation that he never received the decision form the court, and as he cannot read English and needed to seek help with his intended appeal, which explained the slight delay with his intended appeal.

5.  The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day to the applicant’s last reported address, and in the absence of any further details such as how did he eventually find out about the decision which he now wants to appeal if indeed he never received it in the mail, but given the relative insignificance of his delay and that he was unrepresented, I propose to focus on the prospect of success of his intended appeal.

6.  However, the applicant 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 his affirmation, and that he also failed to attend the hearing of his summons without any explanation. 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. I accordingly refuse his application for extension of time to appeal, and dismiss his summons.