RE SOHAIL ADIL

CAMP 207/2021

[2021] HKCA 1823

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 207 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2076 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 7 October 2021, this court handed down judgment ([2021] HKCA 1463)  dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 14 September 2020 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claim.

2.  On 4 November 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has also lodged a written submission on 18 November 2021.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing. We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if 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.

6.  The Notice of Motion did not set out any ground in support of the application.  It only stated that the applicant wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal as his application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused and his application to the Court of Appeal was dismissed.

7.  The written submission asserted that the applicant came to Hong Kong to save his life.  It stated that what the applicant told the Director of Immigration is all true and he had given truthful answers to the questions put by the Torture Claims Appeal Board; yet the Director rejected his claim and the Board was not satisfied with his case.

8.  We are of the view that the matters put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal. Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.  The written submission is also incorrect in asserting that the applicant had answered the Board’s questions truthfully because at the appeal hearing before the Board, the applicant had declined to answer any questions from the Board.   

9.  Nor do we see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we accordingly dismiss the Notice of Motion.