RE SATNAM SINGH

HCAL 1063/2018

[2019] HKCFI 1439

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1063 OF 2018

___________________

___________________

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

1.  This is the applicant’s application for leave to appeal out of time against my decision dated 25 February 2019 (“the Court’s Decision”) whereby I refused to grant him leave to apply for judicial review against the respective decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) and the Director of Immigration (“the Director”).

2.  Full particulars of the factual background are contained in the Court’s Decision. I shall briefly set out the proceedings leading to this application below.

(1) The applicant lodged his non-refoulement claim with the Director and his application was rejected.

(2) He appealed to the Board. Having considered his evidence, the Board refused his appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.

(3) He took out an application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s and the Director’s decisions.

(4) He had attended a hearing before this Court. By Court’s Order, the Court declined to give him leave to apply for judicial review.

(5) On 14 March 2019, he filed a summons asking for leave to appeal against the Court’s Order out of time because the deadline for him to appeal is 11 March 2019. He is therefore 3 days late.

(6) In his supporting affirmation, he did not state the reasons in support of his intended appeal.

3.  The Court of Appeal in Khan Mohammad Shadab [2018] HKCA 897, CAMP 75/2018, 4 December 2018 at §10 held:

“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 delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted: see: Chee Fei Ming v. Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene [2015] 4 HKC 134; and also Wong Yuk Man v. Ng Leung Sing & Anor [2016] HKCU 157 (HCMP 3217/2015, 22.01.2016).”

4.  I accept that the delay is a short delay. If he is able to show that he has reasonable prospect of success in his intended appeal, I would consider granting him the extension of time. However, he has not shown any reasons in his affirmation.

5.  In view of the fact that he is unrepresented, I thought it would be better for him to appear before me so that he may tell me his reasons in support of his appeal.

6.  He appeared before this Court. He was specifically requested to state his grounds in support of his intended appeal. He said that he had no reasons.

7.  In the circumstances, he has not been able to show that he has reasonable prospect of success for his intended appeal.

8.  Therefore, I refuse to extend time to him to appeal out of time. Accordingly, I dismiss his application.