RE ARSHAD MAHMOOD

HCAL 526/2021

[2021] HKCFI 3340

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 526 OF 2021

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 4 June 2021 I refused to extend time to the late application of the Applicant for leave to apply for judicial review of the decisions 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 that there was no good reason for his serious 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 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 22 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 18 June 2021, 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 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 4 days may not be considered as significant, for which he explained at the hearing of his summons that he was then being detained by the Immigration Department and never received the decision in the mail, and that it was only later when he was informed by his immigration officer of the same but by then he was already out of time 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 or documentary evidence to corroborate his bare assertions, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has provided a good reason for his delay, but given its relatively insignificance, I propose to focus on the prospect of his intended appeal.

6.  However, 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 either in his summons or his affirmation, and at the hearing of his summons he just stated that his problem still exists and hence it would still be dangerous for him to return to his home country. 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.