Kalembe Sarah v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

HCAL 11/2019

[2023] HKCFI 1762

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 11 OF 2019

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.On 3 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 27 April 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 17 April 2023, and hence she was some 10 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 10 days cannot be considered as insignificant, for which she just asserted in her affirmation that she did not get the decision “on time” but without providing any further details or evidence in support, nor did she attend the subsequently scheduled 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 evidence to corroborate her bare assertion such as the envelope which contained the decision to show its actual postmark, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has provided any good or valid reason for her 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 other than just a regurgitation of her claim as before, 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 of the Applicant. I accordingly refuse her application for extension of time to appeal, and dismiss her summons.

The Applicant is unrepresented and did not appear.