RE AHMED MIAN SHAHZAD

CACV 374/2019

[2021] HKCA 1911

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 374 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 801/2018)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 7 May 2021, this court (Yeung, Lam VPP and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 2 August 2019 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, 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 on 12 July 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal out of time. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“1. The learned judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the [Director] refusing my application for Judicial Review.

2. There is some error in law in my decision. The decision maker just relied on COI information any my previous facts, which were favor on rejecting my claim.

3. Actual life occur different situation then mentioned COI information. Officer and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining.

4. The Judge did not apply the law properly.”

4.  In the affirmation filed on 12 July 2021, the applicant deposed that he has a “good ground of appeal that was not necessarily considered at the stage of applying for court of appeal” but he did not give any specifics. He claimed that he is unrepresented and has no means to seek legal advice.

5.  The applicant failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1 and did not lodge the skeleton submission within time. The applicant was therefore debarred from lodging any written submissions and the application was dealt with on paper on the basis of the materials already filed before the court.

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.  We are of the view that the applicant has not provided any reasonable explanation for his delay in bringing the application. We nonetheless go on to consider the merits of the application.

8.  The matters stated 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.  The applicant claimed, without giving any particulars or elaboration, that there are errors of law in our judgment. In our view, this bare assertion is not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. His other grounds do not relate to alleged errors in our judgment and therefore give rise to no arguable ground of appeal.

10.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

11.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 12 July 2021 is dismissed.