RE BAPARY YEBRAHIM

CAMP 97/2019

[2019] HKCA 1357

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 97 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 242 OF 2017)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  This court (Hon Yuen and Au JJA) handed down judgment on 24 October 2019 ([2019] HKCA 1175) dismissing the applicant’s application for leave to appeal from an order of Anthony Chan J. (“the judge”) given on 9 May 2019 refusing his application for extension of time to appeal the judge’s refusal on 9 January 2018 to give leave for his intended judicial review for his non‑refoulement claim. The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

2.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion on 25 October 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.  On 30 October 2019, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed that the applicant shall lodge his written submissions on or before 8 November 2019, and the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  We agree it is appropriate to determine this application on paper.  The applicant filed his written submissions on 12 November 2019.  Although the applicant did not provide any explanation for the delay in lodging his submissions, given the relatively short period of delay, we decided to consider his written submissions although they were out of time. 

4.  The applicant stated the following in his Notice of Motion:

“On 24 October 2019 CAMP Judges cancel my leave to apply for judicial review. I did not get justice, so I have no way except going to the Court of Final Appeal for the great interest of [oppressed] people the Court of Final Appeal will give me correct judgment.”

5.  In his written submissions, the applicant just stated that the Director of Immigration and the Adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board did not investigate his claim properly.    

6.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal if the question involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

7.  No question of great general or public importance has been identified in the Notice of Motion.

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

9.  By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion dated 25 October 2019 is dismissed.