RE SADIQ IMRAN

HCAL 1494/2018

[2021] HKCFI 2370

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1494 OF 2018

____________________

____________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

1.  On 7 May 2021 I refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in dismissing his appeal regarding 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 Board or in its decision, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success in his intended application.

2.  The applicant now by a summons issued on 26 May 2021 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 21 May 2021, and hence he was 5 days 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 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 5 days may not be regarded as significant, for which he explained at the hearing of his summons that he has difficulties walking due to his knee injury suffered in his home country before he came to Hong Kong, but when he was asked to explain how it had prevented him from filing his notice of appeal within time when he was still able to come to court for the hearing of his summons, he was unable to give any comprehensible answer.  

5.  The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day to his last reported address without being returned through undelivered post, and in his original non-refoulement claim his alleged knee injury was sustained more than 10 years ago in 2010 but which had not prevented him from subsequently making his way from Pakistan to China and then to Hong Kong, and in the absence of any medical evidence to corroborate his bare assertions, I am not satisfied that the applicant has provided any good reason for his albeit insignificant 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 arguable that the decision was unfair or unreasonable either in his summons or his affirmation, and at the hearing he just stated that he needs more time in Hong Kong to gather further evidence in support of his claim but without providing any details or particulars of what further evidence that he needs after having raised his claim more than 5 years ago. 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 either.

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.