ADNAN UR RASHID v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 404/2022

[2023] HKCA 317

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 404 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2278 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 23 December 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 13 May 2022 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 12 October 2018, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 23 January 2017 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  By Notice of Motion dated 17 February 2023, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states the following:

“Director of Immigration and Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissed my non refoulement claim. The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed my leave to apply for judicial review. All this judgments are not good for me. I want to go to C.F.A.” [sic]

3.  In his written submissions dated 3 March 2023, the Applicant makes various allegations about the situation in Pakistan, and repeats the basis of his non-refoulement claim. He fails to explain his delay in making the present application, and also fails to identify any error in the CA Judgment.

4.  There is no ground for extension of time to appeal under s 24(5) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“HKCFAO”). Further, under s 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be), the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

5.  No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

6.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.