Re Soheb Md

HCAL 826/2019

[2021] HKCFI 3148

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 826 OF 2019

_____________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Suffiad in Chambers

Date of Decision: 28 October 2021

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.The Applicant, by summons dated 6 August 2021, applies for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Court”) given on 29 June 2021 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board in dismissing the Applicant’s 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 13 July 2021 and hence he was 24 days late with his 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, the delay of 24 days is not insignificant.  In his summons and affirmation in support, the Applicant states that he did not receive the decision and the order of the Court on time or within a reasonable period of time to enable him to appeal on time and should be given a reasonable opportunity to present his case.

5.The court record shows that the decision of the Court was sent to the Applicant on the same day that it was made to the last reported address given by the Applicant (being the same address on his present summons) without being returned as undelivered post.  I am therefore not satisfied that the Applicant did not receive the decision of the Court within time for him to appeal on time.

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.  Nor has the Applicant alluded to any particulars of any error of law in the decision of the Court or why it can be said that the decision of the Court was unfair or unreasonable. 

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 the time for appealing against the decision of the Court refusing to grant leave for judicial review, it is for the Applicant to show that there is a reasonably arguable appeal.  This he has not done.

9.In the premises, and for the reasons given, I refuse the application by the Applicant to extend time for appealing the decision of the Court and dismiss the summons.

The applicant is unrepresented