Chinnasamy Karthik v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non Refoulement Claims Petiton Office

CAMP 288/2021

[2021] HKCA 1634

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 288 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 380 OF 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

Before:  Hon G Lam and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Written Submission:  10 August 2021

Date of Judgment:  8 November 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.By summons dated 27 July 2021, the Applicant applied to this court for an extension of time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung (“the Judge”)  dated 14 April 2021 dismissing the Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.Having considered the documents filed by the Applicant, we are of the view that it is appropriate to determine this application on paper without a hearing under Order 59, Rule 14A of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A.

BACKGROUND

3.The Applicant filed a Form 86 dated 11 February 2019 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office/Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”)  dated 1 February 2019.  However, by an affirmation dated 7 April 2021, the Applicant applied to the court to withdraw his judicial review application, saying that he did not have any problem in his country.  Accordingly, on 14 April 2021, the Judge dismissed his application ([2021] HKCFI 949).

4.By summons dated 10 May 2021, the Applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal the Judge’s order of 14 April 2021. In his affirmation filed in support of the application, the Applicant stated that he did not want to return home, but gave no reasons for his change of mind.  The Judge considered that the earlier order of 14 April 2021 was made upon the Applicant’s own application and there was no reasonable chance that he would succeed in his intended appeal.  Accordingly, on 17 June 2021, the Judge dismissed the Applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal ([2021] HKCFI 1625).

THIS APPLICATION

5.By the present summons dated 27 July 2021, the Applicant renewed his application for extension of time to appeal against the Judge’s order of 14 April 2021.  In that summons, the Applicant stated: “I want to appeal my result, but the High Court did not extend time for me”.  In his supporting affirmation also of 27 July 2021, the Applicant stated: “Affirmation for extension of time to appeal as I failed to appeal”.

6.In his 2-page written submissions dated 10 August 2021, the Applicant stated that he had a problem in his country, his family had told him that they had settled the problem with his enemy, but after a few days they confirmed that his enemy “had bad intention … and after I reached my country they will kill me”.  Hence, he changed his mind and wanted to continue his claim.  The Applicant also confirmed that he had no complaint about the Judge, but requested this court to grant his claim.

DISCUSSION

7.In considering whether to extend time for appeal, the court will take into account the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the merits of the intended appeal, and the degree of prejudice to the other party if an extension of time is granted.

8.The prospect of success of the intended appeal is important: the court will not extend time for a hopeless appeal to be pursued, see Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702 at §19.

9.The court’s approach in dealing with appeals in non-refoulement claims is set out in Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 at §14.

10.The Applicant has not pointed to any specific errors in the Judge’s decision dated 14 April 2021, or raised any viable grounds of appeal against the Judge’s decision in his summons, supporting affirmation, or written submissions.  The Applicant has also failed to show any reasonably arguable ground of judicial review of the Board’s decision dated 1 February 2019.

11.The Applicant’s intended appeal has no merits, or reasonable prospect of success.

DISPOSITION

12.Accordingly, the Applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal is refused, and the Applicant’s summons of 27 July 2021 is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acted in person