RE LAZARO LUZVIMINDA G

HCAL 1135/2018

[2021] HKCFI 3260

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO  1135 OF 2018

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

The application

1.  The Applicant, by summons filed on 6 October 2021, applies for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge C. P. Pang (“the Court”)  given on 15 April 2021 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board in dismissing her appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration regarding her non-refoulement claim.

2.  The 14 day period for the Applicant to file her appeal against the decision of the Court ended on 29 April 2021 and hence she was over 5 months late with her intended appeal.

3.  In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, a 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 extension of time were granted.

4.  In the Applicant’s case, the delay was over 5 months which is a significant delay.  No explanation has been given by her either in her summons or in the supporting affidavit as to the reason for the delay.

5.  The court record shows that the decision of the Court was sent on the same day it was made to the last reported address of the Applicant, but it was returned to the court on 7 May 2021 as undelivered post.  In her present summons, the Applicant gave a different address.  If there had been a change of address of the Applicant and she had failed to inform the court of such change, then she has only herself to blame for not receiving the decision of the Court in good time.

6.  As for the prospect of the intended appeal, the Applicant has not put forward any proper or valid draft or proposed grounds of appeal.  Neither has the Applicant alluded to any particulars of any error in law in the decision of the Court or why it can be said that the decision of the Court was unfair or unreasonable either in her summons or in her affidavit.  All that was said was that her life was in danger if she had to go home.

7.  In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, the Court of Appeal held:

“19. The prospect of success of the intended appeal is important: the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued, see Re Rahman Wasif [2019] HKCA 299 at [13]; Re Kpamou Gbotoi Bernard [2019] HKCA 168; and Re Irshad Muhammad [2018] HKCA 864 at [16].”

8.  This being an application to extend time for appealing against the decision of the Court, it is for the Applicant to show that there is a reasonably arguable appeal.  This she has not done.

9.  In the premises, it would be futile to extend time for what would appear to be a hopeless appeal. Accordingly, I refuse the Applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of the Court and dismiss the summons.