Re Abdul Ghafoor

HCAL 803/2018

[2021] HKCFI 3238

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 803 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Suffiad in Chambers

Date of Decision: 5 November 2021

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.The Applicant, by summons dated 30 June 2021, applies for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge C. P. Pang (“the Court”) given on 18 March 2021 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Tribunal Board in dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration refusing his non-refoulement claim protection.

2.The 14 day period for the Applicant to file his appeal against the decision of the Court ended on 1^st April 2021 and hence he was just short of 3 months late with his intended appeal.

3.In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing to grant leave 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 almost 3 months is not insignificant. The Applicant’s explanation for the delay was due to “lack of knowledge and insufficient sources” as stated in both his summons and affirmation in support.

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 the same address given in his present summons) with no indication that the letter has not been properly delivered or returned as undelivered post.

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 either in his summons or in his affirmation.

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, 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, 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