Re Das Santna Rani

HCAL 2308/2018

[2021] HKCFI 3075

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2308 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.The Applicant, by summons dated 15 June 2021 applies for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Court”) given on 11 May 2021 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board in dismissing her appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration regarding her non-refoulement claim.

2.The 14 day period for the Applicant to file her appeal against the decision of the Court ended on 25 May2021 and hence she was some 20 days late with her intended appeal.

3.In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, a 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 extension of time were granted.

4.In the Applicant’s case, this delay of some 20 days is not insignificant. The Applicant explained in her summons and affirmation in support that she did not receive the order and judgment of the Court within the 14 day period for appeal and therefore is now asking for extension of time to appeal.

5.The court record shows that the decision of the Court was sent on the same day it was given to the last reported address of the Applicant (which is exactly the same address as given by her in her present summons) but was returned to the court as undelivered post. Subsequently, directions given by the Court pursuant to the present summons filed by the Applicant were also sent to the Applicant at the same address but were also returned as undelivered post.  After confirming her address with the Immigration Department, those directions were re-sent to the Applicant again at that same address.  There does not appear to be any good reason why those two letters were returned as undelivered post since the address given by the Applicant was exactly the same as the address to which those two letters were sent.

6.As for the prospect of the intended appeal, the Applicant has not put forward any proper or valid draft or proposed grounds of appeal.  Neither has the Applicant alluded to any particulars of any error in law in the decision of the Court or why it can be said that the decision of the Court was unfair or unreasonable either in her summons or in her affirmation.  All that she said in her affirmation was that she should be given a reasonable opportunity to present her case.

7.In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, the Court of Appeal held :

“19. The prospect of success of the intended appeal is important: the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued, see Re Rahman Wasif [2019] HKCA 299 at [13]; Re Kpamou Gbotoi Bernard [2019] HKCA 168; and Re Irshad Muhammad [2018] HKCA 864 at [16].”

8.This being an application to extend time for appealing against the decision of the Court, it is for the Applicant to show that there is a reasonably arguable appeal.  This she has not done.

9.In the premises, and for the reasons given, it would be futile to extend time for what would appear to be a hopeless appeal.  Accordingly, I refuse the Applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of the Court and dismiss the summons.

The applicant is unrepresented