Re Khan Zahfran

CACV 462/2024, [2025] HKCA 196

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 2973

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 462 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1855 OF 2024)

____________________

____________________

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1)  The appeal

1.This is an appeal by the applicant against the decision of Coleman J (‘the Judge’) of 23 October 2024 in which he refused to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review[1].  The Judge also refused to extend time for the applicant to seek leave for judicial review[2].

2.This appeal was scheduled to be heard on 25 February 2025.  Despite the directions from the Court to the applicant dated 17 December 2024 (‘Directions’), the applicant failed to lodge written submission by the stipulated time.  Accordingly by [4] of the Directions, the hearing of the appeal was vacated and the Court will now deal with this appeal on paper. 

2)  Background

3.The applicant is a national of Pakistan.

4.By Form 86 dated 17 October 2024, the applicant sought leave to apply for judicial review to challenge the Director’s Decision dated 16 March 2017 not to grant the applicant extension of stay in Hong Kong as a claimed dependent of his father[3].

5.The background facts have been summarized in the decision of the Judge at [1] to [15].

6.Essentially, the applicant was originally granted dependent visa and a later extension of three years.  However, a second extension was refused, and the applicant’s limit of stay expired on 15 May 2011.  Requests for various reconsideration were then made.  These requests were rejected by virtue of the Director’s Decision.

3)  The Judge’s decision

7.The Judge held that the applicant’s delay in bringing the application was enormous, as the original decision refusing the applicant’s extension of stay had been made more than 13 years ago, and the Director’s Decision had also been made more than 7.5 years ago.  The applicant’s explanation does not justify such a delay.  It is trite that requests for reconsideration do not simply reset the clock for the timing of making any intended challenge.  The merits of the intended challenge are weak.  The Director has taken into account the available evidence.  To permit the challenge after such lengthy delay is prejudicial to the proper administration of immigration matters[4]. 

4)  Grounds of appeal

8.The grounds of appeal may be summarised as follows :

(1)  The applicant is a genuine dependent of his father.  There was no basis for the Director to reject his application for extension of stay;

(2)  The Director’s reconsideration decision took around three years to reach and the applicant should not be accountable for the Director’s delay;

(3)  The Director had failed to consider all the information provided; and

(4)  Even though there is delay, no prejudice has been caused to the Director.

5)  Our view

9.We are of the view that the applicant’s appeal is without merits.  The applicant provided no reasonably arguable grounds for judicial review.  An appeal against refusal of leave for judicial review is not an occasion for the applicant to regurgitate arguments already advanced.  The Court of Appeal would only reverse the decision of the Judge if it could be demonstrated that there were errors in law, that the Judge failed to take into account relevant matters, or the decision was otherwise plainly wrong : see United Muslim Association of Hong Kong v Yusuf Yu [2018] HKCA 451 at [38] and [39].

10.It is thus incumbent on the applicant to point out with sufficient particularity the errors allegedly committed by the Judge in assessing the Board’s Decision.  None of the arguments raised by the applicant shows the Judge has made any error of law.  

11.We see no basis to disturb the Judge’s decision.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

12.On 11 February 2025, the Court was notified by the applicant that he has been removed from Hong Kong.  We will send a copy of this decision and the sealed order to the Director and request that he uses his best endeavour to forward them to the applicant.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person