Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 2735/2018

[2021] HKCFI 3152

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 2735 OF 2018

_____________
RE:	AKTER SANJIDA	Applicant

_____________

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 30 July 2021, applies for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Court”) given on 18 June 2021 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 2July 2021 and hence he was some 28 days 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 some 28 days is not insignificant. The Applicant stated in his summons and affirmation in support that he did not receive the decision of the Court within a reasonable time to allow him to appeal within time.

5.The court record shows that the decision of the Court was sent on the same day that it was made to the Applicant at the last reported address of the Applicant (which is the same address given by the Applicant in his present summons) and the envelope enclosing the decision of the Court was not returned as undelivered post. I therefore have difficulty in accepting the reason given by the Applicant that he did not receive the decision of the Court within the time allowed for his appeal.

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 his summons or in his affirmation in support. All that was said by the Applicant was that he should be given an opportunity to present his 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 to appeal 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 the Applicant 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.