Re Manjinder Singh

HCAL 299/2017

[2019] HKCFI 1331

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 299 OF 2017

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.On 9 January 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 which was based solely on his alleged fear of harm from his former girlfriend’s family who was against their relationship 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 22 March 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 23 January 2019, and hence he was late by about two months with his 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 two months cannot be said to be insignificant or insubstantial, for which he explained at the hearing that he never received any letter from the court enclosing the Court’s decision due to problems with the mailbox of his reported residential address and for which he had earlier also provided the address of his grandmother as his correspondence address.  As the court record did show that the letter sent to his residential address had indeed been returned undelivered and that no letter had been sent to his stated correspondence address until later after he had made enquiries with the Registry.  In the circumstances I was prepared to accept his explanation for the delay.

5.However, he did not provide any draft or proposed ground for his appeal in his summons, and at the hearing he conceded that his former girlfriend whom he had not seen or heard since 2014 may have in fact already passed away, and that given the findings by both the Director and the Board that his alleged risk of harm was a localized one that he was unable to think of any basis to challenge their findings that reasonable internal relocation alternatives were as indeed available to him for his safe return to his home country.  As such and in the absence of any reasonably arguable ground of appeal or any particulars of error in my decision being properly identified by the applicant, 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