RE AMANJEET SINGH

HCAL 1191/2018

[2020] HKCFI 1157

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1191 OF 2018

__________________

__________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  On 4 December 2019 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) and 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 24 December 2019 seeks leave to appeal against that decision out of time, 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 18 December 2019, and hence he was late by 6 days 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 days may not be regarded as significant, for which he explained in both his affirmation and at the hearing that he did not receive the decision by mail and only found out about it later when he made enquiry with the court when he was given a copy.  Given the relatively short delay, I propose to focus on the merit or prospect of his intended appeal.  

5.  However, he did not in his summons or affirmation provide any draft or proposed grounds of appeal, or any particulars of any error in the decision, or why it may be argued that the decision was unfair or unreasonable, and in his affirmation he merely repeated his claim and only referred to the decisions of the Director or the Board rather than the decision which he now seeks to 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 his intended appeal. 

6.  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.