Re Mehmood Nasir

HCAL 904/2017

[2019] HKCFI 190

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 904 OF 2017

______________

______________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.On 27 April 2018 I refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the Director of Immigration and of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in rejecting 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 December 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 expired on 11 May 2018, and hence he was late by more than seven months.

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 seven months must be regarded as substantial and excessive. In his supporting affirmation of the same date he explained that he was not aware of the rule for lodging the appeal within 14 days until he had sought legal advice.  Ignorance of the law of course cannot be accepted as a valid reason, and there is no explanation from him as to why he did not seek legal advice much earlier.  In the circumstances I do not find he has provided any good reason for such substantial delay.

5.Furthermore, he did not provide either in the summons or in his affirmation any draft or proposed ground for his intended appeal, or any particulars as to any error in the decision or why it may be considered as unfair or unreasonable, nor did he avail himself of the opportunity to do so atthe hearing of his summons which he failed to attend without any explanation. 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.  I therefore refuse his application for leave to appeal out of time, and dismiss his summons accordingly.

The applicant was not represented and did not appear