RE ALI RAFAQAT

CAMP 253/2020

[2022] HKCA 583

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 253 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 1419 OF 2018)

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

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

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 25 August 2021, this court (Poon CJHC and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ Bruno Chan given on 2 June 2020 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board, which dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration.

2.  The facts and issues in the application, 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 out of time on 6 October 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“… there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COI information and my previous facts which were favour on reject my claims. Actual life occur different situation the mentioned COI Information. Immigration officer and Hong Kong High Court’s prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities searing for unrealistic silver lining. The decision is betray a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly calculate to reject my claims. Also I am requested to court I don’t have legal represented could you please provide me and consider my real situation and safe my life’s as a human being.”

4.  In the affirmation filed on 6 October 2021, the applicant deposed:

“I am requested to court I don’t have money pay to someone help me prepare my appeal that’s why I am late filling could you please accept my application and safe my life’s.”

5.  In his written submissions lodged on 6 October 2021, the applicant repeated his fears of returning to Pakistan, as well as citing various well-established authorities, but failing to elaborate on how they were misapplied or contravened in the processing of his non-refoulement claim.

6.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, affirmation and written submissions, 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.  The applicant failed to explain how he eventually came to know about this court’s judgment. We are of the view that the applicant has failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

8.  In any event, the matters advanced 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.  None of the matters stated in the Notice of Motion are in our view reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed 6 October 2021 is dismissed.