Re Tu Van Minh
Read the full judgment text of HCAL 40/2022 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 1 November 2022.
1. On 15 February 2022 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 his appeal/petition regarding his non-refoulement claim upon finding that none of his proposed grounds were reasonably arguable for his 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 t
Cited by 1 case · Cites 5 cases
|
HCAL 40/2022 [2022] HKCFI 3295 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 40 OF 2022 _____________
_____________ Before: Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan in Chambers Date of Hearing: 19 October 2022 Date of Decision: 1 November 2022 _____________ D E C I S I O N _____________ 1.On 15 February 2022 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 his appeal/petition regarding his non-refoulement claim upon finding that none of his proposed grounds were reasonably arguable for his 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 his intended application. 2.The Applicant now by a summons issued on 30 June 2022 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 the High Court, Cap 4A ended on 1 March 2022, and hence he was almost 4 months 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 almost 4 months must be considered as very substantial and inordinate, for which he stated in his supporting affirmation as follows:
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, and while I accept that the Applicant being unrepresented might require help with his legal process, but ignorance of the procedural rules can never be accepted as an excuse or reason for their non-compliance, and as the Applicant also failed to attend the hearing of his summons without any explanation, I am not satisfied that he has provided a good or valid reason for his serious delay. 6.More significantly, nor did 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 his summons, while for his complaint in his affirmation that the decision was reached wrongly as he was not given any opportunity to clarify his case or the situation in his home country, of which I take it to mean that no oral hearing was provided for his leave application, the fact is that he had never requested for any, and as noted above he also failed to attend the hearing of his 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 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 was not represented and did not appear |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCAL 40/2022