RE BEGUM FARHANA

HCAL 2087/2018

[2021] HKCFI 724

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2087 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 18 September 2020 I refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) or of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in rejecting/dismissing her non-refoulement claim upon finding none of the grounds put forward by her reasonably arguable for her 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 her intended application.

2.  The applicant now by a summons issued on 8 October 2020 seeks extension of time to appeal against that decision, as the 14-day period for her to file her appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of High Court, Cap 4A ended on 2 October 2020, and hence she was late by 6 days with her 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 6 days may not be regarded as significant, for which she explained in her affirmation that she was only handed the decision by her landlord on 6 October 2020 when by then she was already out of time with her intended appeal.

5.  The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 18 September 2020 to the applicant’s last reported address which is the same as stated in her present application without being returned through undelivered post, when under normal circumstances it would have arrived at her address a few days thereafter, and in the absence of any evidence to corroborate her bare assertion, I fail to see why her landlord would not have given it to her until some 2 weeks later, but given the relatively insignificant delay, I propose to focus on the prospect of her intended appeal.

6.  However, she did not 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 be reasonably argued that the decision was unfair or unreasonable in her summons, and in her affirmation she merely repeated her claim that her life would still be in danger due to problems in her home country, while at the hearing of her summons she could only repeat such claim without putting forward any reasonably arguable ground for her intended challenge. 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 her intended appeal.

7.  In the premises, it would be futile to extend time for what appears to be a hopeless appeal. Accordingly, I refuse her application for extension of time to appeal, and dismiss her summons.