MR SUMON v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 607/2019

[2024] HKCFI 2317

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 607 OF 2019

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 30 April 2024 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in rejecting/dismissing 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 16 July 2024 seeks extension of time to appeal against that decision, as the 14-day period after the decision within which to file his appeal under Order 53 Rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A expired on 14 May 2024, and hence he was more than 2 months 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 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 more than 2 months must be considered as substantial and inordinate, for which he explained at the hearing of his summons that he never received the decision in the mail, and it was only later when he reported on his recognizance that he was informed by his immigration officer of the decision, whereupon he checked on the internet about it and subsequently got help from some friends with the preparation of his intended appeal, but by then he was already out of time.

5.  The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 30 April 2024 to the Applicant’s last reported address which is the same as stated in his present application without being returned through undelivered post, and in the absence of any evidence to corroborate his bare assertions, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has provided a good or credible reason for his such serious delay.

6.  More importantly, the Applicant also 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 in his affirmation, nor was he able to do so at the hearing of his summons other than a regurgitation of his claim as before that he still has life risk in his home country 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, 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.