Re Hunain Latif Zadha
|
HCAL 2089/2018 [2020] HKCFI 2726 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2089 OF 2018 _____________
_____________
_____________ D E C I S I O N _____________ 1.On 14 September 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 29 September 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 28 September 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 must on any view be considered as a very slight delay, for which he did not appear to have provided an explanation, but as he was at the material time being detained at the Castle Peak Bay Immigration Centre, and it seems that he is still being detained there, and given its necessary restrictions with incoming and outgoing mails as well as obtaining legal assistance for his appeal process, I am satisfied that these are justifications to extend time for the Applicant to file his appeal. 5.In the premises, and in view of the current public health situation, I propose to deal with the matter on paper, and accordingly grant the Applicant an extension of time to file his appeal within 14 days of this order.
The applicant is unrepresented |
Cases cited in this judgment
Mohammad Farooq v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Sugiana I Komang v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Liana Wijayanti v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Dinh Van Tau v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Kiran Kumar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Sukhdev Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Henri Chico Gomes v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Chaturvedi Brijesh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Hossain Sheikh Afjal v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Ali Ramzan v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Tran Van Quyen v. Director of Immigration
Obijiaku Moses Chika v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Idayanti Bt Salimar Mandru v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Tariq Kamran v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Butt Umar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Faheem Chaudhry Muhammad v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Danish Arshad Mehmood Alias Danish Arshad Mohmood v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Muhammad Asad Mehmood v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Nguyen Thi Chin v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Tran Minh Sau v. Torture Claims Appeal Board
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 2089/2018