Re Siddique Aamir

HCAL 37/2018

[2019] HKCFI 1587

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 37 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.On 12 April 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 the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in rejecting/dismissing his non-refoulement claim and subsequent appeal uponfinding none of the grounds put forward by him as reasonably arguable, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in their decisions, and that there was no realistic prospect of success in his intended application.

2.The applicant now by a summons issued on 29 April 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 26 April 2019, and hence he was late by three 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 success of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted: Chee Fei Ming v Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene [2015] 4 HKC 134; Wong Yuk Man v Ng Leung Sing & Anor [2016] HKCU 157 (HCMP 3217/2015, 22 January 2016).

4.In the applicant’s case a delay of three days cannot be said to be significant or excessive, and given that he was unrepresented and needed time to find someone to help him with his application, I propose to focus on the prospect of success of the intended appeal, which is a crucial factor in determining whether the Court should exercise its discretion to grant extension of time for appeal: Secretary for Justice v Hong Kong & Yaumati Ferry Co Ltd [2001] 1 HKC 125; Re MK HCMP 2609/2016 (unreported, 10 January 2017); Islam Raja Rais v Director of Immigration HCMP 881/2017 (unreported, 26 June 2017); and Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226.

5.The applicant however did not provide any draft or proposed ground of appeal in his summons or his supporting affirmation of the same date, in which he merely claimed to have a good ground of appeal but did not provide any particulars as to any error in the decision or why it was unreasonable or unfair.  Nor was he able to do so at the hearing of his summons. 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