司法覆核申請逾期提交是否可獲延長時間？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：RE : MOSHSIN ALI - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：林文瀚副庭長、麥偉德上訴法官 - 判決日期：2018年8月24日 ### 案情摘要 申請人MOSHSIN ALI為孟加拉國民，曾多次非法入境及逾期逗留香港。他於2007年提出酷刑聲請，後根據統一審核機制轉為不驅回聲請 (non-refoulement claim)。聲請理由是他擔心返回孟加拉會受到當地政黨相關人士的傷害或殺害，因這些人曾向他勒索保護費。入境事務處處長 (Director of Immigration) 於2014年和2017年先後拒絕其聲請。申請人向上訴委員會 (Torture Claims Appeal Board) 提出上訴，上訴委員會於2017年3月15日駁回其上訴，認為其證供不可靠。申請人其後申請司法覆核許可，但因逾期提交，副法官Woodcock拒絕延長時間，並認為其申請缺乏實質理據。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議點在於：(1) 原審法官拒絕延長申請司法覆核許可時間的決定是否正確；(2) 上訴法庭是否應授予申請人上訴許可，以推翻原審法官拒絕延長時間的決定；(3) 入境事務處處長的決定在申請人已向上訴委員會提出上訴後，是否仍可獨立地被司法覆核。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭根據《高等法院條例》第14AA條，認為拒絕延長時間的決定屬中間性質，上訴需獲許可。法庭引用 Kwok Cheuk Kin v Leung Chun Ying [2018] HKCA 419 案，指出延長時間的決定涉及多方面評估，除非原審法官有法律或原則上的錯誤，否則上訴法庭不會干預。法庭同意原審法官的結論，即申請人延遲一個月提交申請並非微不足道，且未能提供充分理由解釋延誤。此外，法庭認為上訴委員會的決定取代了入境事務處處長的決定，因此處長的決定在申請人已向上訴委員會提出上訴後，不應再被司法覆核。法庭亦認同原審法官對司法覆核申請實質理據薄弱的評估。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了 Kwok Cheuk Kin v Leung Chun Ying [2018] HKCA 419，確立了延長時間申請的性質及上訴法庭審查此類決定的原則。此外，亦引用了 Re Manjit Kaur [2018] HKCA 247 和 Re Miha Md Limon [2018] HKCA 278 說明未提交書面陳詞會被視為放棄口頭聆訊權利。Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226 則強調在延長時間申請中，預期司法覆核申請的成功機會是關鍵考慮因素。De Smith’s Judicial Review, Eighth Edition 亦被引用，說明在兩級審批程序中，初始決定可能被後續決定取代而無法再被挑戰。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭拒絕授予申請人上訴許可，以推翻原審法官拒絕延長申請司法覆核許可時間的決定。由於沒有獲得延長時間，申請人的上訴被視為無效。因此，法庭剔除申請人於2018年3月2日提交的上訴通知書，並駁回其上訴。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申，在不驅回聲請 (non-refoulement claim) 的兩級行政審批架構中，上訴委員會的決定會取代入境事務處處長的決定，因此一旦申請人已向上訴委員會提出上訴，處長的決定便不再可被司法覆核。此外，法庭強調司法覆核申請必須及時提出，延誤需有充分理由，且預期司法覆核申請的實質理據是延長時間申請的關鍵考慮因素。 --- ### 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 : MOSHSIN ALI - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Lam VP and McWalters JA - Date of Judgment: 24 August 2018 ### Factual Background The applicant, MOSHSIN ALI, a Bangladeshi national, had repeatedly overstayed and entered Hong Kong illegally. He lodged a torture claim in 2007, which was later treated as a non-refoulement claim under the unified screening mechanism. His claim was based on fear of harm or death from individuals associated with a political party in Bangladesh who had extorted protection money from him. The Director of Immigration rejected his claim in 2014 and 2017. The applicant appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board, which dismissed his appeal on 15 March 2017, finding his evidence unreliable. The applicant then sought leave for judicial review, but his application was out of time, and Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock refused to grant an extension of time, also finding the substantive application weak. ### Key Legal Issues The main legal issues in this case were: (1) whether the deputy judge was correct in refusing to grant an extension of time for the application for leave to apply for judicial review; (2) whether the Court of Appeal should grant leave to appeal against the deputy judge's decision to refuse an extension of time; and (3) whether the Director of Immigration's decision could still be judicially reviewed after the applicant had appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal held that a decision refusing an extension of time is interlocutory, requiring leave to appeal under section 14AA of the High Court Ordinance. Citing Kwok Cheuk Kin v Leung Chun Ying [2018] HKCA 419, the court stated that an extension of time decision involves a multi-faceted assessment and will not be disturbed unless there is an error of law or principle. The court agreed with the deputy judge that the one-month delay was not insignificant and the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation. Furthermore, the court found that the Board's decision superseded the Director's, making the Director's decision no longer susceptible to judicial review once an appeal to the Board had been pursued. The court also endorsed the deputy judge's assessment of the judicial review application's weak merits. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case primarily cited Kwok Cheuk Kin v Leung Chun Ying [2018] HKCA 419, which established the nature of an application for extension of time and the principles for appellate review of such decisions. Re Manjit Kaur [2018] HKCA 247 and Re Miha Md Limon [2018] HKCA 278 were cited regarding the abandonment of oral hearing rights for non-compliance. Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226 was noted for emphasizing the reasonable prospect of success of the intended judicial review as a crucial consideration for extension of time. De Smith’s Judicial Review, Eighth Edition, was also referenced for the principle that an initial decision may be superseded by a later one in a two-tier process. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal refused to grant the applicant leave to appeal against the deputy judge's decision to refuse an extension of time for applying for leave for judicial review. In the absence of an extension of time, the appeal was deemed incompetent. Accordingly, the court struck out the Notice of Appeal filed on 2 March 2018 and dismissed the appeal. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms that in the two-tier administrative structure for non-refoulement claims, the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board supersedes that of the Director of Immigration. Therefore, once an appeal to the Board has been pursued, the Director's decision is no longer amenable to judicial review. The court also emphasized the importance of promptness in judicial review applications, the need for satisfactory explanations for delay, and that the merits of the intended judicial review are a critical factor in considering an extension of time. --- ### 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.