HOSSAIN MOHAMMAD BILLAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE AND ANOTHER

CAMP 591/2021

[2022] HKCA 1757

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 591 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 486 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Kwan VP and Chu JA) handed down on 2 June 2022 ([2022] HKCA 771). The Court of Appeal refused to grant extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge CP Pang dated 28 January 2021 refusing to grant leave to seek judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning his non-refoulement claim^[1].

2.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed on 22 July 2022 that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing.  The applicant lodged his written submissions on 5 August 2022.  Having considered his written submissions and the papers, we think it is appropriate to determine this application on paper and proceed to do so.

3.  The applicant is a national of Bangladesh.  He was arrested by the police on 14 April 2015 for illegally remaining in Hong Kong.  On 17 April 2015, he sought non-refoulement protection on the basis that he would be ill-treated or killed by members of the Awami League because of his membership in the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, an opposing political party.

4.  He took out a summons in the court below to seek an extension of time to appeal against the decision of the judge.  It was refused by DHCJ Suffiad on 26 October 2021^[2].

5.  On 24 December 2021, the applicant filed a renewed application for leave to appeal out of time.  The application was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 2 June 2022 as the applicant failed to show any prospect of success in his intended appeal.

Grounds of appeal

6.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated that he was not satisfied without giving any specific grounds of appeal.

7.  The grounds stated in his written submissions may be summarised as follows:

(1)  The applicant’s enemies are sitting in power and the authorities work against him.

(2)  He does not agree with the decisions of the Director of Immigration and the Board which stated that he could stay in other part of the country.

(3)  The Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal followed the Board’s decision.  The applicant and all asylum seekers did not get justice.

Analysis and disposition

8.  Under section 24(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) (“the Ordinance”), application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.  Good grounds have to be shown by the applicant for the court to grant an extension of time pursuant to section 24(5) of the Ordinance (Re Rajaram Razeena [2019] HKCA 959 at §1.4).

9.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, 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.

10.  The applicant was late for more than 3 weeks in filing the Notice of Motion.  He did not provide any explanation for the delay so there is no good ground for the court to grant extension of time for him to file his Notice of Motion.  For this reason alone, his application should be dismissed.

11.  In any event, the applicant’s grounds are just bare assertions without basis.  He did not give any particulars or evidence to support his submissions that all asylum seekers did not get justice.  He failed to demonstrate that the Court of Appeal’s decision is unjust, nor did he identify any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b).  There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

12.  For the above reasons, we dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 22 July 2022 for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

[1] [2021] HKCFI 177

[2] [2021] HKCFI 3111