RE IMRAN HUSSAIN

HCAL 946/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1567

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 946 OF 2018

_____________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  On 21 September 2020 I refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) or of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“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 4 December 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 5 October 2020, and hence he was late by 2 months 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 2 months must be regarded as substantial, for which he explained at the hearing that he never received the decision in the mail because he changed his address some 9 months ago, and that he was only informed of it when someone from the Registry recently telephoned him about the decision when by then he was already out of time with his appeal, but when it was pointed out to him that the Registry would not have called him on the telephone about any court’s decision, he then conceded that he did receive the decision in the mail but that he had had to find someone to help him with his appeal when he was by then already out of time with his intended appeal.

5.  The court record shows that the decision was indeed sent on the same day to his last reported address without being returned through undelivered post, and while it is accepted that an applicant in his situation and being unrepresented would normally require assistance with his application, but in the absence of any further details or documentary evidence to corroborate his bare assertions, I am not satisfied that the applicant has provided a good reason for his significant 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, and in his supporting affirmation as well as at the hearing he could merely repeat his claim that his life would be in danger in his home country and that he just wants to remain in 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.