RE KHANDAKAR ALIMUZAMAN

CAMP 110/2021

[2022] HKCA 747

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 110 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1965 OF 2018)

____________

____________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”). The applicant is a national of Bangladesh whose claim for non-refoulement protection in Hong Kong was rejected by the Director of Immigration and by the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”). His application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s decision was dismissed by the Court of First Instance.[1] His application for extension of time to appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court in our judgment dated 29 October 2021.[2]

2.  Long after the 28-day period prescribed by section 24(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), on 13 April 2022 the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to seek leave to appeal against our judgment to the CFA. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that the decision-maker just relied on country of origin information and previous facts in rejecting his claim, that the courts were wrong in not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision of the Director of Immigration, and that the courts ignored the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities in his country. On the same date the applicant filed an affirmation, in which he explained that because of the pandemic it had been difficult for him to get help. He apologised for the delay and asked the court to accept his application out of time.

3.  The written submissions lodged by the applicant on 26 April 2022 simply set out certain provisions of various legal instruments or passages from decided cases without any particulars of how they may be applicable to his case or relevant to the present application.

4.  Having considered the papers, we consider it appropriate, in accordance with the usual practice, to determine this application on the basis of the available materials without an oral hearing.

5.  We take the view that this application ought to be dismissed because the applicant has not shown that the intended appeal raises any question which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision (which is the condition for giving leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance), and also because he has failed to show any prospects of success in the intended appeal.

6.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.