Re Sandhu Amandeep Singh

HCAL 647/2018

[2021] HKCFI 744

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 647 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 17 March 2021

Date of Decision: 1 April 2021

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.On 22 September 2020 I refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) or of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“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 15 October 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 October 2020, and hence he was late by 9 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 9 days may not be regarded as substantial, for which he explained in his affirmation that he did not receive the decision in the mail until the week of 5 October 2020, of which he suspected to be the post office’s delay due to the current pandemic, but by then he was already out of time with his intended appeal, and he also needed time to seek help with the documents for appeal due to his language limitation.

5.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 in the absence of any evidence such as the envelop which contained the decision showing the postmark to corroborate his bare assertion, I am not satisfied that he has provided a good reason for his delay, but given the relatively insubstantial delay, I propose to focus on the prospect of his intended appeal.

6.However, the applicant did not put forth 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 in his summons, while in his supporting affirmation he complained that the court failed to make arrangements to enable him to understand the content of the decision thereby depriving him of the right to seek further avenues of appeal which cannot of course be accepted a valid or proper ground to appeal against that decision, while at the hearing of his summons he merely asked that his claim be reconsidered without putting forward any proper ground for his intended appeal. 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