Re Iqbal Mazhar Alias Mazhar Iqbal

HCAL 1358/2018

[2022] HKCFI 115

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 1358 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.On 16 July 2021 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in dismissing his non-refoulement claim upon finding none of the grounds put forward by him reasonably arguable for his intended challenge, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the process before the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) or the Board or in their decisions, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success in his intended application.

2.The Applicant now by a summons issued on 9 August 2021 seeks extension of time to appeal against that decision, as the 14-day period for him to file his appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of High Court, Cap 4A ended on 30 July 2021, and hence he was some 10 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, the 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 an extension of time were granted: see Re MK HCMP 2609/2016, 10 January 2017; Chu On Fong Winter v The Appeal Panel (Housing) HCMP 982/2017, 20 July 2017; Islam Raja Rais v Director of Immigration HCMP 881/2017, 26 June 2017; Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346.

4.In the Applicant’s case, a delay of 10 days may not be considered as substantial, for which he explained at the hearing of his summons that as he was without legal representation and had had to seek help from friends to prepare the necessary documents for his intended appeal, but by the time he was ready to proceed with his appeal, he was already out of time.

5.The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day to the Applicant’s last reported address without being returned through undelivered post, but given that he no longer has legal representation and the relatively insubstantial delay, I propose to focus on the prospect of his intended appeal.

6.However, the Applicant failed to put forth any proper or valid draft or proposed grounds of appeal, or any particulars of any error in the decision or why it may reasonably be argued that the decision was unfair or unreasonable either in his summons or in his affirmation in which he merely claimed to have a good ground of appeal but without stating what it is, nor was he able to do so at the hearing of his summons other than repeating his claim as before that he cannot go back to his home country where his life would still be in danger. As such and in the absence of any error in the decision being clearly and properly identified by the Applicant, I do not see any prospect of success in his intended appeal.

7.In the premises, and for the reasons given, it would be futile to extend time for what appears to be a hopeless appeal. I accordingly refuse his application for extension of time to appeal, and dismiss his summons.

The Applicant appeared in person