Case Document

100%

HCAL 921/2018

[2019] HKCFI 1305

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 921 OF 2018

___________________

Re.:

Kuldeep Kumar

Applicant

___________________

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge K. W. Lung in Chambers

Date of Hearing:	8 May 2019
Date of Handing Down Decision:	24 May 2019

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

1.This is the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against my decision in Form Call-1 dated 15 January 2019 (“the Court’s Decision”). The date of the summons is 18 February 2019. Therefore, the applicant is out of time for making the application. I shall, therefore, first consider whether time should be extended for him to make his application for leave to appeal.

2.The factual background of the applicant’s application for non‑refoulement claim is set out in the Court’s Decision. I shall briefly state the proceedings below.

(1)   The applicant is an illegal immigrant and he applied to the Director of Immigration Department for non-refoulement. The Director rejected his application.

(2)   He appealed to the Appeal Board, the putative respondent. The Appeal Board refused his appeal and confirmed the Director’s Decision.

(3)   He applied for leave to judicially review the Director’s Decision and the Appeal Board’s Decision respectively and his application was heard before this Court.

(4)   This Court refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review because he had not been able to show that his intended application had reasonable prospect of success.

(5)   Now he intends to appeal against the Court’s Decision and he is out of time.

3.The Court of Appeal in Khan Mohammad Shadab [2018] HKCA 897, CAMP 75/2018, 4 December 2018 at §10 held:

“10. 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 delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the putative respondent if extension of time was granted: see: Chee Fei Ming v. Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene [2015] 4 HKC 134; and also Wong Yuk Man v. Ng Leung Sing & Anor [2016] HKCU 157 (HCMP 3217/2015, 22.01.2016).”

4.In his affirmation in support of his application, the applicant has not set out the grounds of his appeal or the reasons why he considered the Court’s Decision was wrong.

5.In the circumstances, he has not been able to show that there is reasonable prospect of success in his intended appeal.

6.This Court therefore refuses to grant him extension of time to appeal and his application for leave to appeal is also dismissed.