RE LAMA TARA

HCAL 2014/2018

[2021] HKCFI 329

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2014 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 14 September 2020 I refused to grant leave to the applicant 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 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 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 28 September 2020, and hence he was late by some 3 weeks 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 3 weeks may not be considered as insignificant, for which he explained in his supporting affirmation that he never received the decision in the mail, and that he was only informed about it by an immigration officer later when he reported on his recognizance, but by then he was already out of time with his intended appeal.

5.  The court record however shows that the decision was sent on the same day to the applicant’s last reported address without being returned through undelivered post, and in the absence of any further details or documentary evidence in support of his bare assertion from the applicant who also failed to appear at the scheduled hearing of his summons without any explanation, I am not satisfied that he has provided a good or valid reason for his delay.      

6.  More importantly, nor did he in the summons put forward 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, while in his affirmation he complained that he was not familiar with English and that he was not legally represented in his leave application cannot be accepted as any proper or reasonably arguable grounds of appeal. 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, 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.