RE RIZWAN MUHAMMAD

HCAL 1489/2018

[2020] HKCFI 2175

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1489 OF 2018 

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 13 July 2020 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) or of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in rejecting/dismissing 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 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 28 July 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 ended on 27 July 2020, and hence he was late by 1 day 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 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 1 day cannot on any view be considered as significant, for which he explained in his supporting affirmation that he did not receive the decision until 20 July 2020 thereby given him insufficient time to seek help to prepare and file his notice of appeal within the required 14-day period.

5.  Given the insignificance of the delay, and the impact of the current Covid-19 pandemic on the general mail service which was during the material time in operation for only 3 days per week, I accept the Applicant’s explanation that he received the decision late and therefore did not have sufficient time to file his intended appeal.

6.  Accordingly, and in view of the current public health situation due to the Covid-19 pandemic, I propose to deal with the matter on paper, and extend time for the Applicant to file his notice of appeal within 14 days of this order.