RE ISLAM SAIFUL alias RANA

HCAL 942/2017

[2019] HKCFI 611

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 942 OF 2017

______________

______________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  On 29 June 2018 I refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board(“the Board”) in dismissing his appeal/petition regarding his non-refoulement claim upon finding none of the grounds put forward by him as reasonably arguable or with any prospect of success in his intended application.

2.  The applicant now by a summons issued on 31 December 2018 seeks leave to appeal against that decision out of time, as the 14-day period for him to lodge his appeal under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A expired on 13 July 2018, and hence he was late by 4 ½ months with his intended appeal after taking into account of the Court’s summer vacation.

3.  In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the Court will have regard to (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted.

4.  In the applicant’s case a delay of 4 ½ months must be considered as inordinate or substantial.  In his supporting affirmation of the same date he explained that he had at all material times either been in prison or detained by the Immigration Department until recently when he only learnt of the court’s decision, but for which he did not produce any documentary evidence at the oral hearing of his application now before me.

5.  Even if that may indeed be the case, the applicant did not provide any draft or proposed ground for his intended appeal, or any particulars as to any error in the decision or why it was unfair or unreasonable, and at the hearing of his summons he conceded as much but insisted that his claim be reconsidered and repeated that his life would still be in danger in Bangladesh.  As such I am unable to see any prospect of success in his intended appeal.

6.  In the premises it would be futile to extend time for what appears to me a hopeless appeal.  Accordingly I refuse his application for leave to appeal out of time, and dismiss his summons.