RE SARDER ABDUL MAZID

CACV 254/2022, [2026] HKCA 289

On appeal from [2023] HKCA 260

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 254 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 248 OF 2019)

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

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

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 8 March 2023, this court (Barma JA and Chow JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung given on 6 April 2022 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the applicant’s appeal, 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 17 April 2024, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal out of time.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant merely asked this court to “accept” his application which was “out of schedule time”.

4.  In breach of the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant failed to lodge any written submissions in support of his Notice of Motion.  He is thus deemed to have abandoned his right to rely on written submissions, and his application will be determined on the documents already filed before this court.  

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, 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.

6.  The applicant has wholly failed to proffer any explanation for the delay in his application, which was around one year.  The present application is liable to be dismissed on the basis of the serious, unexplained delay alone.  

7.  In any event, the matters stated 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.

8.  The Notice of Motion fails to identify any supposed error in our judgment and the matters stated therein raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

9.  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 dated 17 April 2024 is dismissed.