RE ISHTIAQUE AHMED

HCAL 233/2018

[2021] HKCFI 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 233 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

1.  On 30 June 2020 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) or of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in rejecting/dismissing his non-refoulement claim upon finding 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 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 26 August 2020 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 14 July 2020, and hence he was late by about 6 weeks 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 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 weeks cannot be considered as insignificant, for which he explained both in his supporting affirmation and at the hearing of his summons that he never received the decision in the mail and that he was only told of it by his immigration officer when he reported on his recognizance, but by then he was already out of time with his intended appeal.

5.  The court record however shows that the decision was sent on the same day to the Applicant’s last reported address and has never been returned through undelivered post, and in the absence of any further details or documentary evidence from the Applicant in support of his bare assertion, I am not satisfied that he has demonstrated any good or valid reason for his delay.

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 in his affirmation in which he mainly complained of not being provided with a translation of the decision which cannot per se be considered as a proper ground of appeal, while at the hearing of his summons he merely repeated his claim that his problem still exists in his home country and that he does not want to leave Hong Kong. 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 time for what appears to be a hopeless appeal. Accordingly, I refuse his application for extension of time to appeal, and dismiss his summons.