Re Alkassoum Moussa Alfarouk

HCAL 1493/2018

[2021] HKCFI 3090

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO  1493 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

The application

1.The Applicant, by summons dated 29 July 2021, applies for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge C. P. Pang (“the Court”) given on 18 November 2020 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board in dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration regarding his non-refoulement claim.

2.The 14 day period for the Applicant to file his appeal against the decision of the Court ended on 2 December 2020 and hence he was well over 7 months late with his intended appeal.

3.In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing to grant 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, the delay of well over 7 months is not insignificant.  The Applicant explained in his summons and affirmation in support that he did not receive the order and judgment of the Court within the 14 days limit for the appeal so that he could not file his appeal within time.

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, being the address given by Applicant on his Form 86.  However, the letter containing the decision of the Court was returned to the High Court as undelivered post.

6.In the present summons by the Applicant, he gave a completely new address which is quite different from the address in his Form 86 which probably explained why the letter containing the decision of the Court was returned as undelivered post.

7.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 his summons or in his affirmation.  All that was said by the Applicant in his affirmation was that he should be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case.

8.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].”

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

10.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