Nurhayati-marbun v. Torture Claims Appeal Board and Another

HCAL 141/2019

[2023] HKCFI 730

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO. 141 OF 2019

_____________

BETWEEN

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.On 17 October 2022 I refused to extend time to the Applicant’s late application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) or the Director of Immigration (“Director”) regarding their rejection/dismissal of her non-refoulement claim upon finding that there was no good reason for her serious delay of some 12 months with her application, that none of her proposed grounds were reasonably arguable for her intended challenge, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in her process before the 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 30 November 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 expired on 31 October 2022, and hence she was more than 4 weeks 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 success 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 Gurang Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346.

4.In the Applicant’s case, a delay of more than 4 weeks must be considered as substantial and inordinate, for which she explained in her affirmation that she never received the decision in the mail, and that it was only later that she was so informed by her immigration officer, but by then she was already out of time with her intended appeal. The Applicant did not however provide any further details, nor did she subsequently attend the hearing of her summons without any explanation.

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 barest of assertions, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has provided any good or valid reason for her serious delay.

6.More importantly, the Applicant also 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 her summons or her affirmation, and as noted above that 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