OSMAN AGAMI ABDELMAKSOUD ALI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 365/2021

[2022] HKCA 661

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 365 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1732 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

__________________

J U D G M E N T

__________________

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

1.  On 29 December 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision made by Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung on 29 June 2020 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 3 March 2017 and 20 July 2017.

2.  By a Notice of Motion filed on 3 March 2022, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:

“The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed my leave to apply for judicial review but I wish the Court of Final Appeal will consider my leave to apply for judicial review.”

3.  In the written submissions of the Applicant’s wife filed on 3 May 2022 in support of the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal, the Applicant’s wife states that she is suffering from depression and requires the Applicant’s care and attention, and that the Applicant is also suffering from illness and wishes to be permitted to stay in Hong Kong and become a Hong Kong resident so that he can receive medical treatment at a lower cost. No proposed ground of appeal against the CA Judgment is raised in the written submissions.

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. 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.