Re Ali Asif

HCAL 575/2017

[2019] HKCFI 850

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 575 OF 2017

______________

______________

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

1.On 1 February 2019 I 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 his appeal/petition regarding 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 20 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 15 February 2019, and hence he was late by five days.

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 five days may not be regarded as significant or excessive, 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, and at the hearing of his summons he supplemented that it was not until when he reported to the Immigration Department that he was told of the decision, and that he had immediately found someone proficient in English to help him to prepare his appeal documents.  Given the relatively short delay, I am prepared to accept his explanation. 

5.However, and more importantly, he did not 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.  In fact, at the hearing he agreed that he does not find anything wrong with the decision, but that he simply needed more time to stay in Hong Kong until his problems in his home country has been resolved.  As such and in the absence of any arguable ground 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 appeared in person