Re Mohammed Zubair

HCAL 548/2017

[2019] HKCFI 1328

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 548 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 decisions of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) and of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in rejecting/dismissing his non-refoulement claim upon finding none of the grounds put forth 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 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 about seven 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 seven days may not be regarded as significant or excessive, for which he explained at the hearing that he did not receive any letter from the Court within time as he lives in some very remote village in Yuen Long where the mail service is unreliable.  I was prepared to accept his explanation for his delay and proceeded to consider the merits of his intended application.

5.However, he did not provide any draft or proposed ground of his intended appeal, or any particulars as to any error in the decision or why it was unreasonable or unfair, and at the hearing he conceded that he is unable to find any error in the decision, but as he has now married with a family he simply did not want to leave Hong Kong.  As such 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