NGUYEN ANH TUAN v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 309/2023

[2024] HKCFI 3037

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 309 OF 2023

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 11 June 2024 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of a 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 28 August 2024 seeks extension of time to appeal against that decision, as the 14-day period after the decision within which to file his appeal under Order 53 Rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A expired on 25 June 2024, and hence he was more than 5 weeks late with his intended appeal after taken into account of the Court’s summer vacation in the month of August 2024.

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 more than 5 weeks must be considered as substantial and inordinate, for which he explained at the hearing of his summons that he never received the decision in the mail, and that it was much alter in late August 2024 that he was informed by his lawyer of the decision, 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 11 June 2024 to the Applicant’s last reported address which is the same as stated in his present application without being returned through undelivered post, and in the absence of any reliable evidence to corroborate his bare assertions, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has provided any good or valid reason for his such serious delay.

6.  More importantly, the Applicant 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 in his affirmation, nor was he able to do so at the hearing of his summons other than just repeating his claim as before. 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.