RE NAMGEL LAMA

HCAL 1346/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1417

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1346 OF 2018 

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 16 September 2020 I extended time of 14 days for the applicant to appeal against my earlier decision refusing to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) regarding his non-refoulement claim upon finding that he was not at fault for not filing his appeal within the 14-day period required under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of High Court, Cap 4A for the reasons stated in that decision.

2.  The applicant now by a summons issued on 21 December 2020 seeks further extension of time to appeal, as the 14-days period granted under my order expired on 30 September 2020.       

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 almost 3 months must be considered as very substantial, for which he explained in his supporting affirmation at paragraph 4 as follows:

“I did not receive the Decision from the court yet. I just ask my friend to check my Decision online as I received a phone call from my Immigration officer, only then I came to know about the Decision from the court. I am sorry for the late response. Please give me a chance to apply to the Court of Appeal.”

5.  The applicant however did not provide any further details in his affirmation in support of those assertions, such as when did he receive the phone call from his immigration officer, or what did he do thereafter that may account for such serious delay, nor did he attend the hearing of his summons without any explanation or any response to the subsequent enquiry from the Court as to his non-attendance of his summons.      

6.  More importantly, nor did he 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 either in his summons or his affirmation in which he merely repeated his claim of problems still exist in his home country in Nepal that he cannot return.  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 further time for what appears to be a hopeless appeal.  Accordingly, I refuse his application for extension of time to appeal, and dismiss his summons.