|
CAMP 358/2021
[2022] HKCA 102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 358 OF 2021
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1300 OF 2018)
________________________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
KHAN MOHAMMED SAHZADA |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /
NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE |
Putative
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
Putative
Interested Party |
________________________
Before: Hon Au and Chow JJA in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 12 January 2022
Date of Judgment: 24 January 2022
________________________
JUDGMENT
________________________
Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 29 December 2021, 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 C P Pang (“the Judge”) dated 4 November 2020 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 22 June 2018.
2. The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 29 December 2021 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant complains that the Judge failed to consider all applicable grounds of non-refoulement and was wrong in accepting the adjudicator’s finding, and his decision was irrational.
3. In his written submissions dated 12 January 2022, the Applicant sets out some general principles of public law relating to assessment of non-refoulement claims.
4. Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal 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.
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. 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 Appeal Ordinance.
6. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
(Thomas Au)
Justice of Appeal
|
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal |
The Applicant, acting in person
|