RE RAJU

HCAL 2765/2018

[2021] HKCFI 2956

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2765 OF 2018

____________________

____________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

1.  On 6 May 2021 Deputy High Court Judge To refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in dismissing his appeal/petition regarding his non-refoulement claim upon finding 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 of Immigration (“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 2 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 20 May 2021, and hence he was 13 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 13 days may not be considered as substantial, for which he explained at the hearing of his summons that as he was unrepresented and did not know how to make his appeal, and hence he had had to find a friend who could help him with his application when 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 without being returned through undelivered post, and while accepting that he was unrepresented and had had to seek help from others with his intended appeal, that cannot per se be accepted as a valid or good reason for his delay, but given its relative 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 merely repeated his claim as before that his problem in his home country has still not been resolved that he cannot yet return to Bangladesh.  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.