延長上訴時間的申請是否獲批？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：ISLAM RAJA RAIS v DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：林文瀚副庭長、潘兆初上訴法官 - 判決日期：2017年6月26日 ### 案情摘要 申請人於2017年3月14日提出司法覆核申請，旨在挑戰入境事務處處長（下稱「處長」）拒絕其延長逗留香港申請的決定。處長於2014年7月31日作出該決定，並於2015年6月9日維持原判。申請人隨後向行政長官請願，行政長官於2017年3月3日維持處長的決定。高等法院原訟法庭區法官於2017年3月22日拒絕批予申請人司法覆核許可。申請人未能在14天內上訴，並於2017年4月13日申請延長上訴時間。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議為申請人是否有充分理由獲批延長上訴時間，以挑戰原訟法庭拒絕其司法覆核許可的決定。上訴法庭需考慮延誤時間長短、延誤解釋、上訴理據的勝訴機會，以及對另一方造成的潛在損害。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭根據 Ma Wah Yan v Dharma Realm Buddhist Association Inc 一案確立的原則，審視了延長上訴時間的申請。法庭認為，儘管延誤時間不長，但申請人未能就其在表格86中提供不完整地址作出合理解釋，導致延誤歸咎於其自身過失。更關鍵的是，法庭認為申請人擬提出的上訴缺乏勝訴機會，因為原訟法庭區法官的裁決並無錯誤。給予申請人機會進行一場「毫無希望」的上訴，只會延遲程序，並對入境事務處處長有效及時執行入境政策造成損害。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了 Ma Wah Yan v Dharma Realm Buddhist Association Inc CACV 179 of 2016 (2017年3月2日) 一案，確立了處理延長上訴時間申請時需考慮的因素：延誤時間長短、延誤解釋、擬議上訴的理據，以及對另一方造成的損害。此外，原訟法庭在拒絕司法覆核許可時引用了 BI v Director of Immigration [2016] 2 HKLRD 520 一案，闡明了在人道理由下，入境事務處處長酌情權的廣闊性。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭拒絕批予申請人延長上訴時間的申請，並駁回其於2017年4月13日提出的傳票。這意味著原訟法庭拒絕司法覆核許可的決定維持不變。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了申請人有責任提供正確的送達地址，否則因地址不正確造成的延誤將歸咎於申請人。此外，法庭強調，即使延誤時間不長，若擬議上訴缺乏合理勝訴機會，延長上訴時間的申請仍會被拒絕，以避免延遲程序及對公共利益造成損害。這對司法覆核申請人及其法律代表具有重要啟示，提醒他們必須確保申請的實質理據和程序合規性。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: ISLAM RAJA RAIS v DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Lam VP and Poon JA - Date of Judgment: 26 June 2017 ### Factual Background The applicant filed an application for judicial review on 14 March 2017, challenging the Director of Immigration's decision to refuse his application for extension of stay in Hong Kong. The Director made the decision on 31 July 2014 and maintained it after reconsideration on 9 June 2015. The applicant then petitioned the Chief Executive, who upheld the Director's decision on 3 March 2017. Au J of the Court of First Instance refused leave for judicial review on 22 March 2017. The applicant failed to appeal within 14 days and applied for an extension of time to appeal on 13 April 2017. ### Key Legal Issues The main legal issue was whether the applicant had sufficient grounds to be granted an extension of time to appeal against the Court of First Instance's refusal of leave for judicial review. The Court of Appeal had to consider the length of delay, the explanation for the delay, the merits of the intended appeal, and any prejudice to the other party. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal applied the principles established in Ma Wah Yan v Dharma Realm Buddhist Association Inc for applications for extension of time to appeal. The court found that although the delay was not long, the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for providing an incomplete address in his Form 86, making the delay attributable to his own fault. More critically, the court found that the applicant's intended appeal lacked merits, as Au J's decision was free from error. Granting the applicant an opportunity to pursue a "hopeless appeal" would only delay the process and prejudice the effective and timely enforcement of immigration policy by the Director of Immigration. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited Ma Wah Yan v Dharma Realm Buddhist Association Inc CACV 179 of 2016 (2 March 2017), which established the factors to consider when processing an application for extension of time to appeal: length of delay, explanation for delay, merits of the intended appeal, and prejudice to the other party. Additionally, Au J, in refusing leave for judicial review, cited BI v Director of Immigration [2016] 2 HKLRD 520, which clarified the wide margin of discretion afforded to the Director of Immigration in considering humanitarian grounds. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal refused to grant the applicant an extension of time to appeal and dismissed his summons dated 13 April 2017. This means the Court of First Instance's decision to refuse leave for judicial review stands. ### Key Takeaways This case reaffirms that applicants are responsible for providing a correct address for service, and delays caused by incorrect addresses will be attributed to their own fault. Furthermore, the court emphasized that even if the delay is not long, an application for extension of time to appeal will be refused if the intended appeal lacks a realistic prospect of success, to avoid delaying proceedings and prejudicing public interest. This holds significant implications for judicial review applicants and their legal representatives, reminding them to ensure both the substantive merits and procedural compliance of their applications. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.