Re Abbasi Ahtisham

HCAL 317/2018

[2020] HKCFI 2482

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 317 OF 2018  

_____________

_____________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 2 September 2020

Date of Decision: 7 October 2020

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.On 24 May 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 of Immigration 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 12 June 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 7 June 2019, and hence he was late by more than 1 year 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 more than 1 year must be considered as very substantial and excessive, for which he merely claimed in his supporting affirmation that being a litigant in person that he was not aware of the 14-day time limit for filing an appeal. Ignorance of the law cannot of course be accepted an any valid reason for a failure to comply with the rules. As such I do not find any good reason for the Applicant’s serious delay with his intended appeal. 

5.More importantly, nor did he in his summons or supporting affirmation provide any draft or proposed grounds of appeal, or any particulars of any error in the decision, or why it may be reasonably argued that the decision was unfair or unreasonable, other than some broad and vague assertions that the decision was reached unfairly without giving him an opportunity to clarify his case and situation in his home country, when in fact he failed to attend the scheduled hearing of his application without any reasonable cause. In the circumstances 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 was unrepresented and did not appear