Rustam Adnan v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 284/2017 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 5 March 2019.
1. This is an application for extension of time to appeal against my decision dated 8 September 2017 refusing this applicant leave to apply for judicial review. The applicant may appeal as of right but has to observe the time limits to appeal an interlocutory order. Pursuant to Order 53 Rule 3(4), the applicant had 14 days in which to apply to the Court of Appeal to appeal that decision. He failed to do so. He now requires and seeks leave to extend time to appeal against that order. This applica
|
HCAL 284/2017 [2019] HKCFI 448 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 284 OF 2017 ___________________
___________________ Before: Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock in Court Date of Hearing: 12 February 2019 Date of Decision: 5 March 2019 ___________________ D E C I S I O N ___________________ 1.This is an application for extension of time to appeal against my decision dated 8 September 2017 refusing this applicant leave to apply for judicial review. The applicant may appeal as of right but has to observe the time limits to appeal an interlocutory order. Pursuant to Order 53 Rule 3(4), the applicant had 14 days in which to apply to the Court of Appeal to appeal that decision. He failed to do so. He now requires and seeks leave to extend time to appeal against that order. This application is dated 12 October 2018 and he has supported it with an affirmation. 2.On 17 December 2018 the Applicant wrote and applied to withdraw “my torture claims appeal”. He gave no reasons for this application. I refused that application and a hearing was set down on 12 February 2019. However, the applicant failed to appear. 3.The explanation in the affirmation for this lengthy delay was a misunderstanding on his part. He did receive my decision of 8 September 2017 but friends gave him unreliable information when he enquired of them whether there was a deadline to file a notice of appeal. He has also an ongoing dependants visa application and assumed that he was allowed to stay in Hong Kong pending that application. It was not until recently that an immigration officer informed the applicant that a dependent Visa application did not mean he was entitled to remain in Hong Kong whilst it was processed. Hence his application for an extension of time to appeal my decision. 4.His only ground of appeal was that he was unrepresented when the Director of Immigration assessed his BOR 2 risk claim. His assertion is that because of the high standard of fairness required he should have been entitled to legal representation. He would not succeed in an appeal with this sole ground. 5.I find no reasonable explanation for his delay in bringing the intended appeal. I also find there is no merit nor any real prospect of success in any intended appeal. 6.Having considered the length of delay and the lack of merit in his application, it would not be in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time. The applicant’s summons dated 12 October 2018 is dismissed.
The applicant, in person, absent. | |||||||||||||||||||