MAHMUD PRINCE v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BEHALF OF AN IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT

HCAL 66/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 66 OF 2013

____________

BETWEEN

MAHMUD PRINCE Applicant

and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE behalf of an IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT Respondent

____________

Before: Hon Au-Yeung J in Court

Date of Hearing: 18 July 2014
Date of Decision: 18 July 2014

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1. The applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 13 July 2012. That decisionhad in fact been appealed against when the applicant lodged a petition. It was heard before the learned Adjudicator Madam Betty Kwanwho gave her decision on 8 August 2012 dismissing his petition.

2. Whether one takes the date of 13 July 2012 or 8 August 2012, the applicant was out of time when he filed the Form 86 for leave toapply for judicial review on 10 April 2013.

3. The applicant explains that the delay was due to the need to apply for a dependent visa which would have enabled him to stay inHong Kong.

4. That, in my view, was not a good reason for delaying the present application. Having regard to the fact that he had limited timeto stay in Hong Kong, he should have acted even more expeditiously to apply for the visa so as to proceed with filing the Form 86earlier.

5. The applicant also explains that his delay was due to his application for legal aid. As transpired from his oral submission thismorning, he had left his friend to apply for him. His application for legal aid, according to the court file, was applied for onlyon 11 April 2013 and rejected on 15 May 2013. The application for legal aid appears not to be the reason for his delay in lodgingForm 86.

6. I find there to be no good ground for extension of time in the present application but I have also gone on to consider the merits.

7. The applicant has not stated in the Form 86 and his supporting affirmation what ground he relied on to lodge the present application. His affirmation merely set out his personal background, why he fled his country and ended up in Hong Kong. He also exhibited thetwo decisions of the Director of Immigration and learned Adjudicator that I have mentioned, together with some primary documentswhen he applied to the Immigration for a decision.

8. I have explained, in the course of hearing the submission, that the applicant needs to show, eg that the Director of Immigrationhad acted unlawfully, irrationally or unfairly in the process before this court can consider whether to grant leave to apply forjudicial review. The applicant is unable to give any example of how the Director of Immigration had acted unlawfully, irrationallyor unfairly in the process.

9. In the premises, there being no good ground for extension of time and no merits disclosed in his application, I refuse the applicationand dismiss it.

(Queeny Au-Yeung)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

The applicant appeared in person