Re Hussain Mahboob

HCAL 19/2018

[2019] HKCFI 275

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST
NO 19 OF 2018

______________

______________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.On 19 October 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 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in rejecting/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 5 November 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 2 November 2018, and hence he was late by three days.  As he did not request for any oral hearing, his application is therefore dealt with on paper.

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 his written submission the applicant claimed not to have received the decision on time to enable him to file his notice of appeal within the 14-day period, and although he did not follow up with any particulars such as when exactly did he receive the decision, given that the delay was only for three days, I propose to focus on the prospect of his intended appeal, of which he however failed to provide either in his summons or his supporting affirmation any proper or valid ground or any particulars as to any error in the decision or why he thought it was unfair or unreasonable, other than merely claiming in his written submission that his case had not been fairly considered by this Court or by the Board and repeating his criticisms of the Director’s decision.  As such I am unable to see any prospect of success in his intended appeal.

5.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 acted in person