Re M.A. Jalil

HCAL 1223/2018

[2020] HKCFI 1607

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 1223 OF 2018

________________________

________________________

Before:  Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan in Chambers

Date of Hearing:  11 June 2020

Date of Decision:  28 July 2020

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.On 23 December 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 regarding his non-refoulement claim upon finding none of the grounds put forward by him reasonably arguable for his intended challenge, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the process before the Director or the Board or in their decisions, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success in his intended application.

2.The Applicant now by a summons issued on 9 January 2020 seeks extension of time to appeal against that decision, as the 14-day period for him to file his appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of High Court, Cap 4A ended on 6 January 2020, and hence he was late by 3 days 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 shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (iv) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted: see Re MK HCMP 2609/2016, 10 January 2017; Chu On Fong Winter v The Appeal Panel (Housing) HCMP 982/2017, 20 July 2017; Islam Raja Rais v Director of Immigration HCMP 881/2017, 26 June 2017; Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346.

4.In the Applicant’s case, a delay of 3 days cannot be regarded as significant, for which he explained in his affirmation that he did receive the decision from the mail but as it had to go through his landlord’s mail box, which was given to him late by his landlord, and that thereafter he had had to seek help from his friends with the application for his intended appeal.  In the circumstances and given his relatively insignificant delay, I am prepared to accept his explanation and proceed to consider the merit, if any, of his intended appeal.     

5.He did not however in his summons or affirmation provide any draft or proposed grounds of appeal, or any particulars of any error in the decision, or why it may be argued that the decision was unfair or unreasonable, and in his supporting affirmation he merely repeated his claim that his life is still in danger in his home country and that the Director of Immigration and the Board reached the wrong decisions, and while he claimed to have good grounds of appeal, he did not put forward any of them in his affirmation, nor was he able to do so at the hearing of his summons.  As such and in the absence of any error in the decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not see any prospect of success in his intended appeal. 

6.In the premises, it would be futile to extend time for what appears to be a hopeless appeal.  Accordingly I refuse his application for extension of time to appeal, and dismiss his summons.

The applicant appeared in person