Re Esquillo Riah Mae Ordiz

HCAL 196/2018

[2019] HKCFI 610

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 196 OF 2018

______________

______________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1.On 20 November 2018 Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in dismissing her appeal/petition regarding her non-refoulement claim upon finding none of the grounds put forward by her as reasonably arguable or with any prospect of success in her intended application.

2.The applicant now by a summons issued on 14 January 2019 seeks leave to appeal against that 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 4 December 2018, and hence she was late by almost six weeks with her intended appeal.

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 six weeks cannot be said to be insignificant.  In her supporting affirmation of the same date she explained that she did not receive the decision until her landlord returned from China and opened the mail box to give her the decision in January 2019, and that she already immediately made her present application for extension of time for her intended appeal.

5.Even if that may indeed be the case, and that although she may have claimed in her affirmation to have good grounds to appeal, she did not however provide any draft or proposal of those grounds or actually any ground at all for her intended appeal, or even any particulars as to any error in the decision or why it was considered as unfair or unreasonable, nor was she able to do so at the hearing of her summons before me other than just repeating her claim as before that her life would still be in danger in the Philippines and that she be given more time to remain in Hong Kong.  As such I am unable to see any prospect of success in her intended appeal.

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

The applicant appeared in person