NASIRUDDIN MIAH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

CAMP 63/2021

[2021] HKCA 1635

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 63 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1421 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

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

1.  On 28 September 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s renewed application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 2 June 2020 refusing to grant to the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 29 May 2018.

2.  The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 11 October 2021 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:

“The High Court refused my leave to apply for judicial review. I was not satisfied. I appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal [too] dismissed my appeal. I did not get justice. For Justice I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.”

3.  Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal 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.

4.  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.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Ordinance.

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