|
CACV511/2020
[2021] HKCA 1514
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 511 OF 2020
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 952/2018)
| ------------------------------------------------------------ |
| RE: |
MMADUABUCHI AUGUSTIN CHUKWUMA |
Applicant |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Before: Hon Barma JA and ST Poon J in Court
Date of Judgment: 29 October 2021
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 7 May 2021, this court (Barma JA and ST Poon J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 15 September 2020 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.
2. The facts and issues in the appeal, 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 on 20 May 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:
“The Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board cancel my claim. The High Court and the Court of Appeal refused my leave to apply for judicial review, I have no way to return home. I want to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.”
4. The applicant failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1 and did not lodge the skeleton submission within time, despite having been reminded of the need to do so by the direction made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 24 May 2021. The applicant was therefore debarred from lodging any written submission and the application was dealt with on paper on the basis of the materials already filed before the court.
5. Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, 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 matters stated by the applicant do not 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.
7. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant only alleged that there is no way for him to return but he did not identify any supposed error in our judgment. The Notice of Motion does not disclose any ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.
8. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
9. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 20 May 2021 is dismissed.
| (Aarif Barma) |
(ST Poon) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Judge of the Court
of First Instance |
The applicant acting in person
|