Re Le Thi Hong

HCAL 671/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1051

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 671 OF 2018 

_____________

_____________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 14 April 2021

Date of Decision: 27 April 2021

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.On 9 September 2020 I refused to extend time to the applicant’s late application for leave 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 her non-refoulement claim upon finding no good reason for her delay with her intended application, that none of the grounds put forward by her reasonably arguable for her 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 her intended application.

2.The applicant now by a summons issued on 17 November 2020 seeks extension of time to appeal against that decision, as the 14-day period for her to file her appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of High Court, Cap 4A ended on 23 September 2020, and hence she was late by almost 8 weeks with her 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 almost 8 weeks must be considered as substantial, for which she explained in her supporting affirmation that she initially did not have the financial means to seek legal assistance in interpreting the decision to her as she cannot read English and in preparing the necessary documents for her intended appeal, but later when she was able to do so, she was already out of time.

5.The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day to her last reported address without being returned through undelivered post, and in the absence of any further details or documentary evidence to corroborate her bare assertion, I am not satisfied that she has provided a good reason for her delay.      

6.More importantly, nor did she 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 her summons or affirmation, and at the hearing of her summons she merely repeated her claim that her life would still be in danger in her home country as her problem there still remains unsolved. 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 her intended appeal.      

7.In the premises, it would be futile to extend time for what appears to be a hopeless appeal. Accordingly, I refuse her application for extension of time to appeal, and dismiss her summons.

The applicant appeared in person