Re Butt Anjum Saleem
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 469/2018 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 2 March 2021.
1. On 27 July 2020 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
Cited by 1 case · Cites 5 cases
|
HCAL 469/2018 [2021] HKCFI 364 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 469 OF 2018 _____________
_____________ Before: Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan in Chambers Date of Hearing: 17 December 2020 Date of Decision: 2 March 2021 ________________ D E C I S I O N ________________ 1.On 27 July 2020 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 2 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 expired on 10 August 2020, and hence he was late by some 3 weeks 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 weeks cannot be considered as insignificant, for which he stated in his supporting affirmation as follows:
5.Ignorance of the rules cannot of course be accepted as any valid reason for their non-compliance, while the court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day to the applicant’s last reported address without being returned through undelivered post, and when he claimed at the hearing of his summons that he never received the decision in the mail because he moved to a new address sometime in September 2020, the fact is that by then the decision had already been sent to him some 2 months earlier on 27 July 2020. In the circumstances I am not satisfied that he has provided any good reason for his delay. 6.More importantly, nor did he put forward any proper or valid 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 either in his summons, while his complaint in his affirmation that he was not given any oral hearing for his leave application so that he could clarify his case and situation in his country, the fact is that he never requested for one, and at the hearing of his present application when he was invited to do so, he merely repeated his claim as before that his life would still be in danger in his home country that he cannot yet go home. 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. 7.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 |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 469/2018