RE BULO

HCAL 1584/2018

[2019] HKCFI 1623

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1584 OF 2018

___________________

___________________

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

The application

1.  The applicant is an illegal immigrant and he lodged a non‑refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”).  The Director rejected his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”).  Having considered his evidence, the Board by its Decision dated 30 July 2018 (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected his appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decisions.

2.  Pursuant to Order 53, rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”), the applicant filed Form 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.  He had appeared before me. By Order dated 14 March 2019 (“the Court’s decision”), I refused to grant him leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.  I had given the reasons for rejecting his application in the Court’s decision.

3.  The applicant intends to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the Court’s decision.  However, he is out of time under Order 53, rule 3(4) of RHC.  The deadline for him to appeal should be 28 March 2019.  He took out a summons for time extension for his appeal on 18 April 2019.  He is therefore 20 days late.

The applicant’s affirmation

4.  The applicant filed an affirmation in support of his application.  In his affirmation he said that he only received the Court’s decision on 17 April 2019.  He did not set out any other grounds in support of his application.

5.  The applicant had not identified the reasons to say why the Court’s decision is wrong.  He appeared before me.  Upon my enquiry, he said that the Court’s decision was not made after careful consideration of the facts.  This is his opinion without any evidence in support of it.

Discussion

6.  In Re: Rana Jaswant [2019] HKCA 102, CAMP 160/2018, 6 March 2019, the Court of Appeal held that this Court has the jurisdiction to deal with this application under Order 59, rule 15 of RHC. See paragraph 8.1.

7.  In the above judgment, the Court of Appeal also held that to consider whether time extension should be granted, the court has to consider (1) the length of delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted [8.6].

8.  As said before, the applicant is about 20 days late.  I accept that it is not a long delay.  But he had not set out any ground in support of his appeal against the Court’s decision.  I consider that he has no reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal.

9.  In the circumstances, I dismiss his application.