不驅逐聲請逾期上訴是否應考慮實質理據？上訴得直

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：RE QASIM ALI - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：楊振權署理首席法官、黃佩琪法官 - 判決日期：2019年4月8日 ### 案情摘要 申請人Qasim Ali是一名巴基斯坦國民，因擔心土地糾紛會導致其叔叔及表兄弟對其造成傷害甚至殺害，向入境事務處處長（「處長」）提出不驅逐（non-refoulement）聲請。處長於2017年7月21日拒絕其聲請。申請人遲了8天，於2017年8月15日才向酷刑聲請上訴委員會（「委員會」）提交上訴通知書。委員會拒絕其逾期提交上訴通知書的申請，理由是延誤嚴重且無合理解釋。申請人隨後申請司法覆核許可，但高等法院原訟法庭法官拒絕授予許可。申請人繼而向上訴法庭提出上訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於委員會拒絕申請人逾期提交上訴通知書的決定是否合理。申請人認為，委員會不應將8天的延誤視為嚴重，且其文盲及在囚狀況應被視為逾期提交的合理解釋。上訴法庭需審視原訟法庭法官拒絕司法覆核許可的決定是否有法律錯誤、未考慮相關事項或明顯錯誤。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭認為，委員會將8天延誤視為「嚴重且重大」的決定，以及認為申請人沒有「合理解釋」的決定，在「Wednesbury不合理」的意義上是不可理喻的。法庭指出，處長決定送達申請人已耗時6天，且申請人在囚，理應面對更多困難。委員會未有不相信申請人文盲的解釋，卻認為其「不可接受」，此評估有困難。此外，法庭強調，根據《入境條例》第37ZT(3)條，委員會在決定是否允許逾期提交時，應考慮上訴的實質理據（merits），因為若上訴有理據卻不獲處理，將會構成不公。因此，委員會及原訟法庭法官認為無需考慮實質理據是錯誤的。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了《入境條例》（香港法例第115章）第37ZS(1)條及第37ZT條，這些條文規定了不驅逐聲請的上訴程序及逾期提交上訴通知書的處理方式。此外，法庭參考了 The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Begum (2016) EWCA Civ 122 案中處理逾期申請的三階段方法，並引用 Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 及 Re Khan Kamal Ahmed, CACV 563/2018, [2019] HKCA 377 確立了上訴法庭在處理司法覆核許可上訴時的角色及考慮因素。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭裁定上訴得直，推翻原訟法庭法官拒絕司法覆核許可的命令。法庭批准申請人就委員會的決定申請司法覆核許可，並指示申請人須於判決日期起計14天內提交及送達原訴傳票，列明委員會的決定在Wednesbury意義上不合理，以及委員會未考慮不驅逐聲請的實質理據。 ### 判決啟示 本判決強調，在處理不驅逐聲請的逾期上訴申請時，酷刑聲請上訴委員會應更靈活地評估延誤的嚴重性及申請人提出的解釋，特別是考慮到申請人可能面臨的特殊情況（如在囚或文盲）。判決明確指出，委員會在決定是否允許逾期提交時，必須考慮上訴的實質理據，因為若有理據的上訴因程序問題而不獲處理，將構成不公。這對未來處理類似逾期上訴申請具有重要指導意義。 --- ### 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: RE QASIM ALI - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Yeung Acting CJHC and Lisa Wong J - Date of Judgment: 8 April 2019 ### Factual Background The applicant, Qasim Ali, a Pakistani national, lodged a non-refoulement (NRF) claim with the Director of Immigration due to fear of harm or death from his uncle and cousins over a land dispute. The Director rejected his claim on 21 July 2017. The applicant filed his notice of appeal to the Torture Claims Appeals Board (Board) 8 days late, on 15 August 2017. The Board refused his application for late filing, citing the delay as serious and without good reason. The applicant then sought leave for judicial review, which was refused by a High Court judge. The applicant appealed this refusal to the Court of Appeal. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the Board's decision to refuse the applicant's late filing of appeal was reasonable. The applicant argued that an 8-day delay should not be deemed serious, and his illiteracy and incarceration should be considered valid reasons for the delay. The Court of Appeal had to determine if the lower court judge erred in law, failed to consider relevant matters, or was plainly wrong in refusing leave for judicial review. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal found that the Board's findings that an 8-day delay was a "serious and significant failure" and that the applicant had "no good reason" for the breach were Wednesbury unreasonable. The court noted that the Director's decision took 6 days to be served on the applicant, and the applicant's incarceration would reasonably present more hurdles. The Board did not disbelieve the applicant's explanation of illiteracy but found it "unacceptable," which the Court found problematic. Crucially, the court held that under section 37ZT(3) of the Immigration Ordinance, the Board must consider the merits of the appeal when deciding whether to allow late filing, as it would be unjust not to allow a meritorious appeal due to procedural issues. Therefore, the Board and the lower court judge erred in not considering the merits. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment cited sections 37ZS(1) and 37ZT of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap 115), which govern the appeal process for non-refoulement claims and the handling of late-filed notices of appeal. It also referred to the three-stage approach for late applications from The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Begum (2016) EWCA Civ 122. Furthermore, Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 and Re Khan Kamal Ahmed, CACV 563/2018, [2019] HKCA 377 were cited to establish the Court of Appeal's role and considerations in appeals against refusal of leave for judicial review. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, overturning the lower court judge's refusal of leave for judicial review. The applicant was granted leave to apply for judicial review of the Board's decision. The applicant was directed to file and serve an originating summons within 14 days, setting out the grounds that the Board's findings were Wednesbury unreasonable and that the Board failed to consider the substance of the non-refoulement claim. ### Key Takeaways This judgment emphasizes that the Torture Claims Appeals Board should adopt a more flexible approach when assessing the seriousness of delays and the explanations provided by applicants in non-refoulement appeal applications, especially considering special circumstances like incarceration or illiteracy. It clarifies that the Board must consider the substantive merits of an appeal when deciding on late filing, as it would be unjust to dismiss a meritorious appeal on procedural grounds. This provides significant guidance for future handling of similar late appeal 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.