RAZA ASIF v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION BOARD

CA MP60/2019

[2019] HKCA 963

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 60 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 742 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This is the applicant’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 28 June 2019 ([2019] HKCA 723), dismissing his application for extension of time to appeal against the judge’s decision refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review concerning his non-refoulement claim.

2.  By a Notice of Decision dated 12 August 2016 and a Notice of Further Decision dated 23 June 2017, the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) rejected the applicant’s claim.

3.  The applicant appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board(“the Board”) against the Director’s decisions.  His appeal was dismissed by the Board on 21 September 2017.

4.  He filed a Form 86 on 9 October 2017 to seek leave to apply for judicial review against the decisions of the Director and the Board and his application was refused by Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock on 25 July 2018. 

5.  The applicant applied for leave to appeal against the judge’s decision out of time.  His application was refused by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 2 April 2019 as there is no prospect of success in the intended appeal.

6.  The applicant filed a renewed application with the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against the decision of the judge out of time.  It was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 28 June 2019 as the intended appeal does not have any prospect of success.

7.  By a Notice of Motion filed on 22 July 2019, the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  He stated as his grounds of appeal in the notice of motion that the judge did not write any cause to cancel his application so he was not satisfied.

8.  In the written submissions lodged by the applicant on 5 August 2019, he submitted that:

(1)  He had not received any decision from the court and he was only informed of the decision by the immigration officer;

(2)  There does not seem to be any apparent prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time is granted;

(3)  The judge failed to adhere to high standards of fairness in making sufficient enquiry into the Board’s decision.

(4)  He has strong reasons to believe that his case has very strong prospects.

9.  The Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed on 23 July 2019 that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.  We consider it appropriate to proceed in this manner and will determine this application on paper.

10.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, 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.

11.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b).  There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

12.  For the above reasons, we dismiss the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.