RE SUMAGANG JADE RIVERO

HCAL 2523/2018

[2022] HKCFI 2565

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 2523 OF 2018

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  On 14 December 2021 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”)  in refusing to allow the late filing of his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”)  regarding his non-refoulement claim upon finding that none of his proposed grounds were 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 21 January 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 ended on 28 December 2021, and hence he was some 3½ weeks 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 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 3½ weeks must be considered as significant or inordinate, for which he explained in his affirmation that the decision sent to him in the mail had been misplaced as he had changed his address without informing the authorities.

5.  The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day to the Applicant’s last reported address, and if the decision indeed had been misplaced in the mail because he failed to properly update his address with the authorities, he had only himself to blame for his present situation. In the circumstances I am not satisfied that the Applicant has provided a good or valid reason for his significant delay.

6.  More significantly, 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 in 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.