SUKHDEV SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 2438/2020

[2023] HKCFI 2874

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2438 OF 2020

_____________

_____________

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

1.  On 14 June 2023 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in rejecting/dismissing his non-refoulement claim upon finding that 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 of Immigration (“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 20 September 2023 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 the High Court, Cap 4A ended on 28 June 2023, and hence he was some 12 weeks late 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 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 12 weeks must be considered as very substantial and inordinate, for which he explained in both his affirmation and at the hearing of his summons that he never received the decision in the mail, and that it was later when he noted on the internet that the decision had already been delivered, but by then he was already out of time with his intended appeal.

5.  The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 14 June 2023 to the Applicant’s last reported address without being returned through undelivered post, and in the absence of any further or relevant details or documentary evidence to corroborate his bare assertions, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has provided a good reason for his serious delay.

6.  More importantly, the Applicant also failed to put forth any proper or valid draft or proposed grounds of appeal, or any particulars of any error in the decision or why it may reasonably be argued that the decision was unfair or unreasonable either in his summons or his affirmation, and at the hearing of his summons he just repeated his claim as before that his problem in his home country has not yet been resolved that he still cannot return. 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, and for the reasons given, 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.