Re Amburose Edward

HCAL 185/2018

[2018] HKCFI 2433

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 185 OF 2018

______________

______________

_____________________

D E C I S I O N

_____________________

1.On 13 September 2018 Deputy High Court Judge Lam refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board in rejecting and dismissing 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 October 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 27 September 2018, and hence he was late by about three weeks with his application.

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 three weeks would not normally be regarded as excessive, and in his supporting affirmation of the same date he did not provide any explanation, but at the hearing of his summons he explained that as the flat in which he was residing in one of the cubicles was under renovation and hence all the mails were collected by the security guards for distribution, and it was only on 17 October 2018 that he was given the Court’s decision that by then he was already out of time.  While I accept his explanation for the delay, I am unable to find any merit in his intended appeal.

5.Not only did he fail to produce any draft or proposed ground of appeal, he in fact admitted at the hearing that he could not find any error in the decision, and that the only reason why he wanted to appeal was so that he could remain in Hong Kong until his problems back home in India may be resolved next year or so.  As such 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.

The applicant appeared in person