RE KHANDAKAR ALIMUZAMAN

HCAL 1965/2018

[2021] HKCFI 594

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1965 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

1.  On 1 September 2020 I refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in dismissing his appeal regarding his non-refoulement claim upon finding 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 (“the 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 5 October 2020 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 expired on 15 September 2020, and hence he was late by 20 days 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 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 20 days cannot be considered as insignificant, for which he explained both in his supporting affirmation and at the hearing of his summons that he received the decision late in the mail as his landlord only handed it to him sometime in October 2020 shortly before he issued his summons.

5.  This is however just a bare assertion for which the applicant did not provide any corroborating evidence such as the envelop which contained the decision to show the actual postmark, as the court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day to his last reported address without being retuned through undelivered post. I do accept that he might have required legal assistance to help him to prepare his documents, and given the insubstantial delay, I propose to focus on the merits, if any, of his intended appeal.

6.  The applicant however has not 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 be reasonably argued that the decision was unfair or unreasonable either in his summons, and in his affirmation and at the hearing he merely repeated his claim that his life was in danger in his home country and that the Director and the Board reached the wrong decision in rejecting his claim but without identifying any error in my decision. As such I do not see any prospect of success in his intended appeal.

7.  In the premises, 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.