RAZA ALI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

CACV 304/2020

[2022] HKCA 856

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 304 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1957 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 17 March 2021, this court (Barma JA and S T Poon J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 13 July 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, which dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration.

2.  The facts and issues in the 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 15 September 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that he wished to challenge the decision of this court because, inter alia, “the learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality” and “the Judge did not apply the law properly”, without providing any particulars or basis.

4.  In the affirmation filed on 15 September 2021, the applicant deposed:

“I did not receive any judgment from the High Court regarding the appeal be dismissed. I only got to know about it upon reporting to Immigration Office. Leave be granted to me to file Notice of Motion out of time.”

5.  The applicant has failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1 and did not lodge any written submissions.

6.  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.

7.  The applicant claimed that he did not “receive any judgment from the High Court” (assuming he meant the letter enclosing a copy of this court’s judgment) but he did not explain why that was the case.  He also did not state when he eventually came to know about the judgment.  We are therefore of the view that the applicant has failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

8.  In any event, the matters advanced 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.

9.  None of the matters stated in the Notice of Motion are therefore in our view reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 15 September 2021 is dismissed.