RE SAYAL MOHAMMAD SUJAN

HCAL 2714/2018

[2021] HKCFI 3077

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2714 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

The application

1.  The Applicant, by summons dated 9 August 2021, applies for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Court”) made on 22 June 2021 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board.  By its decision the Board had dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration regarding the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.  The 14 day period for the Applicant to file his appeal against the decision of the Court ended on 6 July 2021 and hence he was just over one month late with his intended appeal.

3.  In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, a 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.

4.  In the Applicant’s case, this delay of one month is not insignificant.  In his affirmation in support (and also in his present summons for extension of time), the Applicant explained that he did not get the judgment of the Court so he was out of time lodging his appeal.

5.  The court record shows that when the Applicant attended the hearing before the Court on 15 June 2021, he had indicated to the Court that he would be changing from his old address to a new address within 2 weeks.  As a result of that indication the decision of the Court was sent by post on the same day that decision of the Court was made to both the old address of the Applicant as well as to the new address which the Applicant had supplied to the Court.  I therefore am not satisfied with the explanation proffered by the Applicant as being the reason for the delay.

6.  As for the prospect of the intended appeal, the Applicant has not put forward any proper or valid draft or proposed grounds of appeal in his affirmation and summons.  Nor has the Applicant alluded to any particulars of any error in the decision of the Court or why it can be said that the decision of the Court was unfair or unreasonable.

7.  In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, the Court of Appeal held:

“19. The prospect of success of the intended appeal is important: the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued, see Re Rahman Wasif [2019] HKCA 299 at [13]; Re Kpamou Gbotoi Bernard [2019] HKCA 168; and Re Irshad Muhammad [2018] HKCA 864 at [16]”.

8.  This being an application to extend time for appealing against the decision of the Court, it is for the Applicant to show that there are matters which can reasonably be argued on appeal.  This he has not done.

9.  In the premises, and for the reasons given, it would be futile to extend time for what would appear to be a hopeless appeal.  Accordingly, I refuse the Applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of the Court and dismiss the present summons.