|
CAMP 71/2022, [2023] HKCA 1182
On Appeal From [2021] HKCFI 2514
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 71 OF 2022
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 179 OF 2019)
_________________________
| RE: |
AKHAND SHIMUL |
Applicant |
_________________________
| Before: |
Hon Yuen and Barma JJA in Court |
| Date of Written Submissions: |
31 July 2023 |
| Date of Judgment: |
20 October 2023 |
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Yuen JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. This court handed down judgment on 19 July 2023 ([2023] HKCA 851) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal against an order of DHCJ P. Li given on 26 August 2021 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim.
2. The facts and issues in the application before this court, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.
3. On 31 July 2023, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal against this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.
4. In his Notice of Motion, the applicant stated that he does not agree with the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board and the Director of Immigration. He also stated that the High Court and the Court of Appeal did not give him justice.
5. In his written submissions, he stated that he has a baby in Hong Kong and he wanted to see his baby [and] the claim result.
6. As it is appropriate to do so, the Notice of Motion is determined on paper without an oral hearing.
7. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (“HKCFAO”) (Cap. 484) provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if 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.
8. The applicant’s assertion that the courts did not give him justice is not supported by anything. In the present application, the applicant has not identified any mistakes in the judgment of this court, or any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.
9. Nor do we see any basis for granting leave under the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
10. By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion filed on 31 July 2023 is dismissed.
(Maria Yuen)
Justice of Appeal
|
(Aarif Barma)
Justice of Appeal
|
The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|