Re Jacob Jennifer Galicia

HCAL 1515/2018

[2022] HKCFI 2562

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 1515 OF 2018

_____________

_____________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 10 August 2022

Date of Decision: 23 August 2022

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.On 28 April 2021 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in rejecting/dismissing her appeal/petition regarding her non-refoulement claim upon finding that none of her proposed grounds were reasonably arguable for her intended challenge, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the process before the Director of Immigration (“Director”) or the Board or in their decisions, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success in her intended application.

2.The Applicant now by a summons issued on 17 May 2022 seeks extension of time to appeal against that decision, as the 14-day period for her to file her appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A ended on 12 May 2021, and hence she was more than 1 year late with her 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 more than 1 year must be considered as extremely substantial and inordinate, for which she explained in her affidavit that she never received the decision in the mail, and that it was much later when she reported on her recognizance that she was so informed by her immigration officer, but by then she was already seriously out of time with her intended appeal.

5.The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day to the Applicant’s last reported address which is the same as stated in her present application without being returned through undelivered post, and in the absence of any further details or evidence to corroborate her bare assertion, and as she also failed to attend the hearing of her summons without any explanation, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has provided a good or valid reason for her such serious delay.

6.More significantly, nor has the Applicant 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 her summons or her affidavit, and as noted above she also failed to attend the hearing of her summons without explanation. 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 her 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 her application for extension of time to appeal, and dismiss her summons.

The Applicant was not represented and did not appear