Case Document

100%

HCAL 171/2019

[2023] HKCFI 1646

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 171 OF 2019

_____________

BETWEEN

	ABDUL KARIM HENI SRI UTAMI	Applicant
and
	TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD	Putative Respondent
and
	DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION	Putative Interested Party

_____________

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan in Chambers

Date of Hearing:	15 June 2023
Date of Decision:	29 June 2023

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.On 19 April 2023 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 her 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 5 May 2023 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 3 May 2023, and hence she was 2 days 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 2 days cannot on any view be considered as significant, for which she explained at the hearing of her summons that she never received the decision in the mail, and it was only later that she was able to find out about the decision with the help of a friend, but by then she was already out of time with her intended appeal.

5.The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 19 April 2023 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 evidence to corroborate her bare assertion, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has provided a good or valid reason for her delay, but given the insignificance thereof, I propose to focus on the prospect of her 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 her summons or her affirmation, nor was she able to do so at the hearing of her summons other than just repeating her claim as before that it is still dangerous for her to return to her home country. 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.