ISLAM MUHAMMAD v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CAMP 270/2022

[2022] HKCA 1881

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 270 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2060 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.  On 30 September 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal out of time against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 7 June 2022 refusing to grant to the Applicant an extension of time to appeal against the Judge’s earlier order of 6 July 2021 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 6 September 2018, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 26 April 2018.

2.  The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 30 November 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant stated as follows:

“Director of Immigration and Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissed my [non-refoulement] claim. The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed my leave to apply for judicial review. All [these] judgments are not good for me. I want to go to C.F.A.”.

3.  The Applicant has failed to lodge written submissions in accordance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 30 November 2022.

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 the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter 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.

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. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or 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.