Re Hussain Altaf
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 1473/2018 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 27 August 2020.
1. On 8 July 2020 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) or the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in rejecting/dismissing 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
Cited by 1 case · Cites 5 cases
|
HCAL 1473/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1473 OF 2018 _____________
_____________ Before: Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan in Chambers Date of Decision: 27 August 2020 ________________________ D E C I S I O N ________________________ 1.On 8 July 2020 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) or the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in rejecting/dismissing 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 23 July 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 22 July 2020, and hence he was late by 1 day 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 1 day cannot on any view be regarded as significant, and the fact is that due to the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic, the registry was closed on 21-22 July 2020. 5.In view of the current public health situation, I propose to deal with his application on paper, and for the reasons given, I am prepared to accept that the Applicant might have been prevented from filing his notice of appeal within the required period during those two days when the registry was closed, and accordingly grant him extension of time to file his appeal within 14 days of this order.
The applicant is unrepresented |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 1473/2018