ABBAS SHEIKH ANSAR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

CAMP 58/2021

[2022] HKCA 75

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 58 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2110 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 12 October 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”)  dismissing the Applicant’s renewed application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 19 August 2020 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 12 January 2018 and the decision of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office/Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 26 September 2018.

2.  The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 21 December 2021 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:

“The Director of Immigration rejected my claim. The Adjudicator of the Torture Claim Appeal Board too rejected my claim. The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed leave to apply for judicial review. I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.”

3.  The Applicant has not filed any written submissions in support of the Notice of Motion notwithstanding the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 21 December 2021.

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.