RE MITTAL SANJEEV

HCAL 832/2017

[2018] HKCFI 2429

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 832 OF 2017

______________

______________

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

1.  On 14 September 2018 I refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the Director of Immigration and of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in rejecting and dismissing his non-refoulement claim upon finding none of the grounds put forward by him as reasonably arguable or with any prospect of success in his intended application.

2.  The applicant now by a summons issued on 4 October 2018 seeks leave to appeal against that decision out of time, as the 14-day period for him to lodge his appeal under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A ended on 28 September 2018, and hence he was late by 6 days with the filing of his intended appeal.

3.  In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the Court will have regard to (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted.

4.  In the applicant’s case a delay of 6 days does not appear to be substantial.  In his supporting affirmation of the same date he explained that he did not understand English and therefore it took him longer time to get help from his friends to explain the decision to him.

5.  While such an explanation may be acceptable in the circumstances of the applicant for a fairly insubstantial delay, it would still be relevant to consider the prospect of his intended appeal by referring to the proposed ground of his intended appeal, of which however he did not provide any, nor any particulars as to any error in the decision or why it was unreasonable or unfair, without which I am unable to see any prospect of success in his intended appeal.

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