Re Kanwal Gulnaz

HCAL 973/2017

[2018] HKCFI 2393

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 973 OF 2017

______________

______________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1.On 20 July 2018 I refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) and the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in rejecting and dismissing her non-refoulement claim upon finding none of her proposed grounds reasonably arguable and no prospect of success in her intended application.

2.The applicant now by a summons issued on 11 September 2018 for leave to appeal against my decision out of time, as the 14-day period for her to lodge her appeal under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A ended on 3 August 2018, and hence she was late by about five weeks.

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 five weeks cannot besaid to be insignificant, for which she simply explained in her summons thatit was due to her not receiving the letter from the court enclosing the decisionuntil 7 September 2018 but without any further particulars or explanation as to why that was so, as the covering letter enclosing the decision was dated 20 July 2018 and sent to the same correct address as stated in her summons now before me, and for which I was not able to obtain any clarification fromher either as she again failed to appear at the oral hearing for her application.  

5.As for the prospect of her intended appeal, the applicant in her supporting affirmation only exhibited copies of my decision and its said covering letter without producing any draft grounds of appeal or putting forward any arguments as to how and where this court had erred in law or in facts in the decision.  As such I am unable to see any prospect of success in her intended appeal either.

6.In the premises it would be futile to extend time for what is clear to me a hopeless appeal.  Accordingly I refuse her application for leave to appeal out of time and dismiss her summons.

The applicant was not represented and did not appear