RE KHARSU NUMAN

HCAL 168/2017

[2018] HKCFI 2422

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 168 OF 2017

______________

______________

_____________________

D E C I S I O N

_____________________

1.  On 18 August 2017 Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock 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 18 September 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 ended on 1 September 2017, and hence he was late by more than one year.

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 more than one year must be regarded as very substantial or excessive.  In his supporting affirmation of the same date he explained that he did not receive any letter from the Court and hence was not aware of the decision until much later when he was detained by the Immigration Department that he was told of the decision, and as he had to seek advice from his friends that a long time had lapsed by the time he decided to lodge his appeal, but at the hearing of his summons before me, he was unable to explain why the decision did not reach him at his last known and reported address from where he has not moved at all material time up to now.  In the premises I do not accept that he has provided any valid reason for such excessive delay.

5.  To decide whether there is any good reason to extend time it would be relevant to consider the prospect of his intended appeal by referringto the proposed grounds of appeal, of which however he did not provide anydespite his claim to have good grounds in his affirmation, and in the absence of any particulars as to any error in the decision or why it was unreasonable or unfair, 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.