Re Riaz Muhammad Tehseen

HCAL 256/2018

[2019] HKCFI 1063

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 256 OF 2018

______________

______________

_______________________

D E C I S I O N

_______________________

1.On 3 January 2019 I refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) and Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in rejecting/ dismissing his non-refoulement claim and subsequent appeal respectively 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 11 February 2019 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 ended on 17 January 2019, and hence he was late by some three weeks.

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 three weeks cannot be said to be insignificant, for which he explained in his supporting affirmation of the same date that he did not receive any letter from the Court and hence was not aware of the decision, but he was able to exhibit to his affirmation a copy of the letter dated 3 January 2019 which notified him of the Court’s decision which was also annexed to that letter which he claimed not to have received in the first place.  As such and in the absence of any further clarification or elaboration from him and as he also failed to attend the hearing of his summons without any explanation, I do not accept his explanation as a valid or good reason for his delay.

5.Nor did he provide any draft or proposed ground for his appeal,or any particulars as to any error in the decision or why it was unreasonable or unfair, without which 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.  Accordingly I refuse his application for leave to appeal out of time, and dismiss his summons.

The applicant was not represented and did not appear