SAEED UR REHMAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

HCAL 906/2019

[2021] HKCFI 2459

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 906 OF 2019

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

A.  Introduction

1.  The application made in this case was by a Notice of Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (“Form 86”)  dated 25 March 2019.  The Applicant has named the Director of Immigration (“Director”)  as the proposed respondent, and the challenge is stated as being to a “Decision dated 07.09.2016”.

2.  The application was supported by an affirmation from the Applicant which stated that the Applicant wanted to judicial review the refusal decision by the Director of his Right of Abode, given under a particular reference number.  The Applicant says this decision was “unfair and unreasonable”, but no further grounds or any detail of the alleged unfairness or unreasonableness are identified.

B.  Further Information

3.  The Applicant also wrote a letter to the ‘High Court Registry Office’ dated 4 April 2019, in which he asked for help in sending a letter under his name with reference to these proceedings, as the letter would help him obtain bail from the Immigration Centre where he was then in detention.  By reply letter dated 10 April 2019, the Applicant was informed that his case had been referred to a Deputy High Court Judge for further consideration.

4.  It is unclear what then subsequently happened. However, at some point the view seems to have been taken that the Applicant might have made a claim to non-refoulement protection, and certain enquiries were made by the Registrar.  However, by letter dated 25 May 2021, the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office have stated that they have no record of the Applicant having filed any material appeal/petition.

5.  It also appears that recent enquiries with the Immigration Department have now revealed that the Applicant was refused Right of Abode, and his application for an ID card was refused.  He has apparently made an appeal to the Registration of Persons Tribunal, but he has not made a non-refoulement claim.

C.  Resolution

6.  Despite the rather unfortunate delay, and the slightly confusing history, dealing with the application made in these proceedings is actually straightforward.

7.  By virtue of Order 53 rule 4 of the Rules of the High Court, applications for leave to apply for judicial review are to be made promptly, and in any event within three months from the date when the grounds for the application first arose, unless the Court considers that there is good reason for extending the period within which the application shall be made.

8.  In this case, the intended challenge was apparently to his decision dated as long ago as 7 September 2016, but the application was not made until 25 March 2019, namely 2½ years later.  Neither the Form 86 nor the supporting affirmation acknowledge that the like, nor offer any explanation for it.  Nor is there any request for an extension of time, nor any offered good reason for extending the period within which the application should be made.

9.  Therefore, not only was the application not made promptly or within three months from the date of the decision proposed to be challenged, there is no good reason for extending time.  It might also be added that a general and un-particularised assertion of unfairness or unreasonableness does not enable the Court to identify any merits in the proposed challenged in any event.

10.  In the circumstances, I dismiss the application.