RE RASHEED USMAN

CAMP 267/2019

[2023] HKCA 454

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 267 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 1096 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 31 May 2021, this court (Yeung VP and Barma JA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J given on 2 November 2018 refusing to grant an extension of time for his application for leave for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration refusing to allow the applicant to re-open his claim for non-refoulement protection.

2.  The facts and issues in the applicant’s application, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed out of time on 20 September 2022, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant made various complaints against the “immigration officer” and “decision maker”, as well as contending that the High Court “prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities”.  In his supporting affirmation, the applicant stated that he had “changed” his home address and apologised for failing to notify the court of the change, which had resulted in the filing of his Notice of Motion out of time.

4.  In breach of the directions by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant failed to lodge written submissions with the Court. He is thus deemed to have abandoned his right to rely on written submissions.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and affirmation, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.  The applicant failed to explain how and when he eventually came to know about the judgment of this court.  On his own admission, he failed to notify the court of his change of address, and he must bear the consequences of such failure.

7.  We are therefore of the view that the applicant has failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.  The delay of more than one year is substantial, and the Notice of Motion is liable to be dismissed on this basis alone.  However, we shall nonetheless consider the merits of the application.

8.  The matters stated by the applicant do not in any event constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.

9.  The Notice of Motion does not identify any supposed error in our judgment and it raises no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

10.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

11.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 20 September 2022 is dismissed.