RE MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM

HCAL 501/2018

[2021] HKCFI 928

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 501 OF 2018 

_____________

_____________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  On 27 July 2020 I refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decisions 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 10 November 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 10 August 2020, and hence he was late by 3 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 3 months must be considered as substantial, for which he explained in his affirmation that he only received the decision late on 10 November 2020, and so on the same day he issued the summons now before the court for extension of time to file his notice of appeal, and at the hearing of his summons he further clarified that he changed his address around that time but without informing the authorities of his new address.

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 since it was his duty to inform the authorities as soon as practicable of any change of his residential address, and if indeed he received the decision late due to his change of address without informing the court, he has only himself to blame for being out of time with the filing of his intended appeal, for which I am not satisfied that he has provided any good reason for his substantial 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 or affirmation, and at the hearing of his summons he merely repeated his claim that he cannot return to his home country as his problem still exists. 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.